Showing posts with label Lecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lecture. Show all posts

5/29/2015

A Critical Moment: Sex/Gender Research at the Intersection of Culture, Brain, & Behavior
October 23-24, 2015  - Early Registration Ending June 30
UCLA, Los Angeles, California
 
WEBSITE

Confirmed Keynote Speaker is Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, Nancy Duke Lewis Professor Emerita of Biology and Gender Studies, Brown University, and author of the pioneering books, Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World (2012) and Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (2000). 

Some of Our Many Talks:
The Maternal Mystique: Constructing the Biosocial Body at the Maternal-Fetal Interface (Sarah Richardson)
Recent Discoveries and Opportunities for Improved Understanding of Sex-Biasing Biological Factors (Art Arnold)
A Life History Theory Perspective on Neural, Hormonal, and Genetic Correlates of Variation in Human Paternal Behavior (James Rilling)
Social Neuroendocrinology and Gender/Sex: Asking Hormonal Questions with Social Construction and Evolution in their Answers (Sari van Anders)
Where Does Sexual Orientation Reside? (Lisa Diamond)
Early Androgen Exposure and Human Gender Development: Outcomes and Mechanisms (Melissa Hines)
Naturalizing Male Violence and Sexuality (Matthew Gutmann)

Panel discussions and question/answer sessions with the audience throughout this 2-day event. Don’t Miss Out.
Discover the latest findings on sex/gender, from an interdisciplinary perspective. All at UCLA this October 23-24, 2015.

REGISTER NOW. Our last two conferences sold out before the end of Early registration.
EARLY REGISTRATION (lower cost)  ENDS  June 30, 2015

9/11/2014

“The Coming of the New Class Society: Gender Matters” Chizuko Ueno’s Presentation at ISA World Congress of Sociology (July 2014)

ISA World Congress of Sociology (Facing an Unequal World: Challenging for Global Society) was held in Japan from July 13th to 18th, 2014. The Congress is held once every four years and over 4,000 sociologists gathered in Yokohama, Japan this time.
.
Program Information

Chizuko Ueno, chairperson of WAN, made a presentation at the Opening Presidential Panel, under the title of “the Coming of the New Class Society: Gender Matters.”

Presidential Plenary I: Facing an unequal World
Her presentation is available online at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/50029763 (starting from 00:59:00)

Original Article: Chizuko’s Blog No. 75
Adopted and Translated by Fumie Saito


5/17/2013

Chizuko Ueno "Forty Years of Japanese Feminism"


Chizuko Ueno, "Forty Years of Japanese Feminism: What it has achieved...and what it has not"
April 22, 2013, 5:00pm
International House 1414 E. 59th St. Chicago IL. 60637
The University of Chicago Committee on Japanese Studies is pleased to welcome Chizuko Ueno, Professor Emeritus of Tokyo University, for the 2013 Najita Distinguished Lecture in Japanese Studies. A sociologist by training, Professor Ueno is one of the leading feminist critics and public intellectuals in Japan. She is the author and co-author of more than fifty books that address issues of the family, patriarchy, gender, capitalism, and nationalism.
from the website of the Center for East Asian Studies

Posted by Atsuko Ishikawa

12/03/2012

Japanese Army’s Sexual Violence Panel Exhibition in China -- Brief Report on Prof.Qu Yajun’s Lectures in Japan: Part 2


Following Part 1, here is the second report on the lecture by Professor Qu Yajun from Shaanxi Normal University, Xian, China, given at Nihon University on Sunday, November 11, 2012, entitled “Women, Peace, and a Nation’s Self-Examination.”

AT the beginning of this lecture, Prof. Qu spoke about how she was impressed by the activities of a Japanese citizens group voluntarily collecting materials and oral testimony about the Japanese army’s wartime sexual violence and its support for Chinese victims of that violence in lawsuits against the government of Japan for postwar compensation.

In addition, the Japanese group known as the Japanese Army’s Sexual Violence Panel Exhibition committee had organized a series of panel exhibitions in Japan to reveal the facts of wartime sexual violence and their own activities. Later they brought the exhibit to China and Prof. Qu and her colleagues attended the panel exhibition held in Shanxi in 2010 thanks to  collaboration between the Japanese committee and local Chinese women. She instantly decided to invite the the exhibition to be held at her university, and in the following year it was actually held at the university attached Women Culture Museum in Shaanxi.

In her lecture, Prof. Qu quoted and analyzed various responses from Chinese visitors to the exhibition, including her bosses and nearly one thousand students. She also commented on the anti-Japan sentiment prevailing among the Chinese youth and their violent reactions against the Japanese government’s decision to purchase the Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands, and suggested how they could be interpreted in the current social context.

I would also like to insert my own comments inspired by her lectures, quoted words and the speeches of the other speakers and the audience.


 (1) Responses from Chinese Visitors to the Panel Exhibition on Japanese Army’s Wartime Sexual Violence Held at Shaanxi University


According to the committee members of the panel exhibition, there were initial concerns that the exhibition might only fuel Chinese hatred against Japan, devastating the bilateral relationship. But it seems to me that the exhibitions received far more diverse responses than they had expected. The following comments of Chinese visitors to the exhibition in 2011, which Prof.Qu quoted in her lecture, evidently showed that at least the one held in Shaanxi accomplished much more than just sharing the historical facts.

Each statement is that of one Chinese visitor:

 

l   “I take it to heart that this exhibition was organized out of sincere wishes for women not to be victimized by such violence even in case of war, without the intention of stirring up hostility against Japan. After all, if war happens again, women would be assaulted. That’s the reality. Now I know the problems reflected in this exhibition do not exist between one country and another, but between war and women….”

l  “Having seen these abundant materials, I have never been so deeply moved as I have by today’s exhibition. These eyes, tears, memories full of scars and traumas I saw in the panels, made me closely touch the war history of women.”

l  “I despise those people who laughed at and looked down upon the women who were raped during the war long after they survived it. I should hate them even more than Japanese soldiers.”

l  “What impressed me most deeply is the fact that all materials of this panel exhibition were provided from Japan. Those Japanese people bravely stood up to assume the responsibility of their predecessors, made continuous efforts to seek historical truth, and supported our grandmothers in their lawsuit calling for the Japanese government’s apologies to help them regain their dignity. Those actions by highly conscious Japanese friends moved me so deeply. Now I know that to remember is to maintain peace and to express our wish that war shall never be repeated, not to express our resentment.”

l  “I do not like nor dislike Japan. However, I think that the Japanese have something for us to learn from. History should not be used as an excuse for hostility….”

l  “I want more teachers and students to visit this site and see this exhibition. This is not something you should receive once in a life like baptism, but is our history which we should repeatedly learn from and reflect upon.”


I remember, there had been a question of whether or not feminism could be transnational, a question raised and argued by Eastern Asian feminists since the UN Women conference in Beijing in 1995. It seems to me that the above words plainly show that feminism could overcome national boundaries. In this positive and symbolic achievement, feminism and transnationalism are two key factors as, in my view, the meaning of “transborder” is made most clear on when we are named Japanese by others  and they are expected to behave like Chinese in China, and yet we and they can act upon shared values and theoretical framework.


(2) Significance of Anti-Japan Sentiment and Actions in Present China


Prof. Qu Yajun’s lectures were given when there was no sign of improvement yet in the China-Japan relationship as the new administration of China was yet to be determined, even though anti-Japan riots across China had been suppressed. Therefore it was extremely significant that she frankly mentioned about the Chinese anti-Japan sentiment to a Japanese audience toward the end of her second-day lecture.

Prof. Qu first admitted that there has been hostility against Japan in Chinese society, uniquely among the youth, and that is attributable to the memory of the war eighty years ago. I accept it as a premise for our mutual understanding of each other’s history.

But there was much more to it, she said, and so she continued and pointed out other inner factors driving the youth to violent action. Life is so hard for many of them, with the overwhelming pressure of competition at school and work, soaring land prices and rents. They want to blame somebody, but who would allow them to collectively blame anybody for anything? Finally, they saw Japan as the only safe target to attack.

Prof. Qu was concerned about Chinese people’s lack of understanding about Japan’s reality and diversity. She encourages the Chinese to recognize Japan as composed of those who are consistently reflecting upon their past history, and those who know very little about the past war and strongly desire world peace and friendship with China, as well as those who remain hostile to China, wishful to glorify war, and eager to repaint the undesirable picture of the past. They should know Japanese people are allowed to have different opinions, she said.

Prof. Qu also expressed her concerns about the frequent incidences of irrational reactions in various crashes between the two nations, emphasizing the danger of the whole nation fanatically applauding one thing (Olympics, for instance) or using the same vocabulary to blame one thing (Japan, for instance) for something or other. She even referred to a certain recent survey which revealed that more than half of the college students in China actually feel “so-so” about Japan.

One young Japanese man in the audience honestly admitted that he felt relieved by her words, which was quite understandable as we were exposed to repeated images of the infuriated Chinese youth abusing Japan on TV. I consider it necessary to overcome an obsession and nervousness toward China based on relative and broader perspective.
Needless to say, it does not mean that we could rely on such relativism to evade our historical understanding and post-war responsibilities in dealing with the war victims in China.

In that sense, it is encouraging to know that this year’s dispute has made decent citizens of Japan, especially young and naïve people, more aware of the historical and territorial issues than ever. I believe that they are becoming more wary of right wing extremists’ anachronistic attempts to rewind Japan’s history back to the age of nationalistic and anti-feministic fervor rather than attracted by their loud voices calling for “restoration” of Japan or “amendment” of the constitution.


Reported by FUKUOKA A. A

Japanese version was also written by FUKUOKA A. A

11/30/2012

Three Kinds of Women’s Discourses in Modern China -- Brief Report on Prof.Qu Yajun’s Lectures in Japan: Part 1


Qu Yajun is a professor at Shaanxi Normal University, Xian, China, and director of both the Women’s Research Center and Women Culture Museum of the university. Despite the fact that the Japan-China relationship was in danger of being jeopardized by the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute, with even cultural exchanges suspended in many cases, she visited Tokyo as originally scheduled to speak about women’s studies and her experiences in China.
Prof.Qu’s lectures were both impressive as well as timely, all the more because they were given in the midst of the difficult time between the two countries. What follows is a report on her presentation made at the meeting of the Women’s Studies Association of Japan, on Saturday, November 10, 2012, at Rissho University, entitled “Three Kinds of Women’s Discourses in Modern China.”

Based on what I (the writer of this report) understood from Prof.Qu’s speech, I will describe the major points of the two days of lectures in two consecutive reports, of which this is Part 1, and will also add my personal comments inspired by her lectures.  



(1) “Half the Sky” Discourse


Back in the Cold War period, socialist countries were often depicted as dreams come true. China was also highly regarded at the time in terms of women’s status in society as evidenced by the quotation of Mao Zedong,“women hold up half the sky.”

According to Prof.Qu, these words of Mao suggested that women are as capable as men. As a result of the Chinese Revolution, the traditional idea of “men outside, women inside” was overthrown, replaced by the ideal of independence, liberation and equality of men and women. The major promoter of the “half the sky” discourse was the All China Women’s Federation (hereinafter ACWF), formed in March 1949, even before Chairman Mao’s declaration of the People’s Republic of China.

According to Prof.Qu, however, the widely accepted notion of women being equal to men could be misinterpreted as women acting like men. Since the “half the sky” is a mainstream discourse, it carries ideological dogmatism and authoritarianism with it. As it regards self-pride, self-confidence, self-independence and self-empowerment as its standards, the discourse tends to leave women unaware of their actually weak position in a still patriarchal society.

After the 1980s, Prof. Qu points out, the above-mentioned four “self”s were no longer so obviously praised in novels but the “half the sky” discourse was represented by brave women soldiers, excellent women judges and successful businesswomen instead.


(2) “Feminist” Discourse

In the same period, Prof. Qu reminded us, China started to be influenced by Western feminism. Especially after the fourth UN Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995, awareness of feminism was enhanced and attention to the socially weak, including women, increased. There began a move to deconstruct masculine culture and to interpret sex and gender as a political discourse.

Compared to the “half the sky” discourse, this new “feminism” was characterized more as an attempt by women for women to emancipate themselves. Instead of being on the receiving end of social liberation, feminist women now began to fight their way into their specialized research areas from a gender-oriented perspective, eschewing mainstream ideology.

According to Prof. Qu, more than one hundred research institutes have been established in China, carrying the term “gender,” “feminism” or “women,” serving to raise the status of women’s studies in higher education. On the other hand, her concern is that they tend to be plagued by staff shortages, budget problems and a lack of facilities. Furthermore, Prof. Qu goes on to say, post-modern philosophy, which represents the core of feminist theory, is too difficult for ordinary people to understand. Therefore, in her view, feminist oriented studies, in their efforts to counter male-centrism, could cause anew a center-peripheral conflict between woman and woman.

Nonetheless, Prof.Qu observes that the “half the sky” and “feminist” discourses tend to merge with each other. The facilitating factors include deepened understanding between the chief staff of relevant departments of ACWF and women scholars through joint efforts in various activities. As reform and open policy accelerates, the boundary between women staff from the proletarian class and women scholars from intellectual families have also been removed.


(3) Emergence of “Modern Ladies” and Coexistence of the 3 Confronting DiscourseS?


Against the above-mentioned two kinds of women in modern China, quite a new category called “modern ladies” emerged. Prof. Qu introduced them as the kind of white collar woman one finds on the cover of fashion magazines or the beautiful women serving as TV newscasters.

They know that they cannot expect to enjoy any more protective measures as women in severe competition in a market economy. They disagree with the “half the sky” discourse as it is so old-fashioned and criticize the “feminist” discourse as it is too radical. Prof. Qu is critical of the “modern ladies” discourse because it has internalized men’s view of masculine culture, as women’s beauty, elegance, gentleness and weakness are being commercialized.

Prof. Qu does not see the boundary between the “modern ladies” and “feminist” discourses as clear and fixed. She maintains that those concepts like “personal” and “private” from Western feminism are also characteristic of the “modern ladies". But the “modern ladies” discourse was generated and developed along with the market, which is the mainstream ideology in present-day China. So it contradicts with the “feminist” discourse which is characterized by its attention to the periphery. No matter how apparently the “modern ladies” try to come off as appearing advanced in the business world, they inevitably end up being objectified and alienated in men’s eyes.

There was a question raised by the audience as to how the “housewives” are positioned within those discourses, but unfortunately Prof. Qu did not have time to elaborate on this issue.

A few weeks later, I had a chance to meet a Chinese friend, a young woman working at a publishing company in Beijing. In response to my question, she presented her personal view, saying that those “modern ladies” seek to meet one of those “new rich” men who were also the product of the market economy, and become a housewife. Unlike activists or scholars, the ordinary women seem to be strongly affected by the “modern ladies” discourse.

At the end of this lecture, Prof. Qu summarized the relationship between the coexisting three discourses about women as follows:

All three are double-sided in their own way, complicating their relationship. The government authorized “half the sky” discourse certainly freed Chinese women of some burdens western women must have tackled. It could control the negative results of commercialism through its orthodoxy. And yet, its orthodoxy could become conservatism, resulting in conflict with the radical “feminism” discourse. The “feminism” discourse, which could be a powerful weapon to fight back against masculine ideology, might come to a dead end if it recklessly crashes with the “half the sky” discourse, ignoring cultural and social characteristics of Chinese society and practices. The “modern ladies” discourse is attractive because of its newness and trendiness, but might become retrogressive as the society itself advances.


~~To be continued in Part 2~~
Reported by FUKUOKA A.A

Japanese version was also written by FUKUOKA A.A. 



6/30/2012

How far must we go back to reset ourselves




“Women Seeking Nuclear-Power-Free World” held gathering on June 2nd, 2012 titled “Stop the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants! We are the women to send out messages. June 2nd 2012”

Lecture: How far must we go back to reset ourselves?
Lecturer: Masako Sakata

  Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson wrote in her book, Silent Spring, “Chemicals are ominous substance just like radioactivity and could change the way this globe is and the life itself. If we do not regulate chemical drugs now, they would be most likely to cause a huge disaster.”

On March 11, 2011, I was in the middle of editing my film on chemical drugs called Agent Orange (herbicides) that caused a huge disaster. Through this film, I wanted to relay a message that, “If we do not seriously consider now Carson’s warning made fifty years ago, what kind of world would we leave to our descendants fifty years later However, we did not have to wait as long as fifty years to experience that great calamity. It happened with the explosion of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. All of us must have a feeling, “If only we can rewind the clock back to March 11, last year…If it were at all possible, we would like to start all over again.”

So in order to restart, how many years must we take ourselves back?
Personally, I believe that we have to date back to the World War II period.
Then you may ask, “Why did the World War II happen?” We probably need to date back even further to find an answer to this, but let me tentatively select the time of World War II for now because of my limited capacity of time and intelligence.

Both atomic power and chemicals are by-products of wars. That means atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Agent Orange sprayed in a great amount during the Vietnam War. Both of them were produced by developing scientific inventions made by strenuous efforts of world’s top scientists. Not all of these scientists were involved in the research or science of nuclear power, intended for developing weapons. In fact, the scientists such as Einstein and Oppenheimer who contributed great deal to the development of nuclear power later regretted that their research resulted in creation of mass-murder weapon as atomic bombs.

On the other hand, those technology and science developed through scientific research during the war times have drastically changed our daily life. I was born soon after the end of the World War II and I remember quite well the day a TV set first arrived at my home, so with a refrigerator, and a vacuum cleaner. Being guided by Panasonic TV-ad song in those days, “Akarui Nashonaru, Akarui Nationaru, Minna no Iejuu Denki de Ugoku (Bright Panasonic, Bright Panasonic, all of our homes are operated by electricity… ), nights of Japan got brighter and brighter. And we, the post-war generation, without having the actual experience of wars had longed for the life-style of people in the United States and got more and more brainwashed by its materialistic civilization.

The time we were growing up was exactly the same period that nuclear power plants were growing. It was my mother that had me recognize the threat of the nuclear power plant for the first time in my life. In the mid 1970’s, she heard from her first daughter, my big sister, who lived then in a small island in the English Channel, that Japan’s used nuclear fuel was being carried to used-fuel reprocessing plant in La Hague in France, and that its radioactive waste had been becoming a big issue in nearby areas and anti-nuclear power plant movement had arisen by the residents. During that period, my sister delivered a still death baby that was seriously disabled. This rang a bell in my mother and she began to suspect the possibility of link between the death of her grandchild and radiation. She started her self-study about the nuclear power plant and soon she recognized how dangerous it is, at the same time the deception of the electric power company and the government had been revealed.

Her personal study resulted in a booklet, “Please listen.” Gradually the number of people sharing the same fear and doubts started to increase. My mother passed away thirteen years ago, but after the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant explosion, this mimeographed booklet was published as a book.
Despite having such a mother in family, I was still thinking little of the danger of nuclear power plant, believing that since the government is involved, safety must be duly checked, or that since it is a project embodying researches by a number of best and brightest scientists and pundits, it’s a matter a house wife like my mother doesn’t need to worry about. Although sympathizing with her sentiments, I was totally involved in authoritarianism.

To restart anew, to what period in time should we walk back to?
Even if it is not possible for me to get back to my pre-born days of the World War II, I should at least date back to 1970’s when the issue became noticeable enough to be questioned. We should at least date back to that period when I, or we, did not see the problem. If only we had noticed the danger of nuclear power plants then and had taken action against it, something would have been changed, perhaps. Let us not lament that it’s too late and nothing can be done about it any more, but let us directly face the problem presented to us now and take action, otherwise we are afraid to see what the world would be like in thirty years, or in fifty years.

In quest for an answer to my question, “ what did we do wrong, at what point did we make a mistake?”, I traveled to Marshal Islands last month, the place where humanity started large-scaled nuclear bomb tests less than a year after they had learned, to the fullest extent, the wretchedness of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I wanted to probe into its origin in those islands. Between 1946 and 1958, the U.S. conducted a series of nuclear bomb tests in these islands, especially at Bikini and Eniewetok, abundant in corals. They tested as many as sixty-seven atomic and hydrogen bombs that are 7,200 times as powerful as Hiroshima’s little boy. The damage caused by the nuclear bomb tests fifty or sixty years ago has continued to linger on and the soil, animals and plants are still so heavily contaminated by cesium and plutonium that people cannot return to their hometown islands. They have been mentally and physically harmed by radiation.

Their ongoing agonizing features can be overlapped to those of people in Fukushima who were deprived of their lives by the explosion of the nuclear power plants. Over the year, I visited Fukushima several times and met people there who are displaced from their hometown and still cannot find any hope. Just recently, I interviewed a man who has been protesting, at the risk of his own life, against culling as many as 300 cows in Namie-cho, the area within 20 kilometer from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. And just a few days ago I learned sad news that the man killed himself while he paid a temporary visit to his home. Until he decided to commit suicide, how much sorrow did he cope with? And how thickly and heavily such sentiments are blanketing other hundreds of people there?

It’s not possible to go back to sixty years ago and start anew so at least, we must make a decision to halt nuclear power development immediately lest we should repent again. In 1954, when Daigo Fukuryu Maru (Lucky Dragon 5), a tuna fishing boat returned to Japan after being exposed to radioactive fallout from the US’s thermonuclear device test in Bikini Atoll, Japan’s anti-nuclear bomb movement surged drastically. It is said that one in three Japanese citizens, a total of more than 30,000,000 people, joined the accumulating signature movement started by housewives in Suginami-ward, Tokyo. Let’s regain the passion we had at that time.

We tend to think that individual power is so small that we cannot do anything, but now’s time for us to prove that we can change the world if we accumulate such small individual power.Writer Makoto Oda in his book mentions the phrase ‘getting others involved while being dragged into by certain situation’. I think it is the foundation of civic movement. We are being employed by companies whether we like it or not, being regulated by the rules of those companies, and end up being robotic beings. Or by believing in information from TV or newspaper as is, we are being manipulated or brainwashed by the propaganda of companies sponsoring these media. We can neither quit our job to start anti-war movement nor part from mass media, however, even being dragged into these conditions and environments, we can stand out to say “NO!” and bring about a change to the world…. It’s Oda’s idea, but I think it is very important. We should not allow our selves being drugged into, doing nothing. We may not be able to win against authority, but should not be indulged in that situation.

The recent government’s decision to restart the reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Oi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukui Prefecture only serves to reveal the fact that the government is trying to involve its citizens with their incomprehensible logic. It has demonstrated so vividly the process of involvement of citizens, and people of neighboring local governments.

Let us not be persuaded by the deceit and lies by those drugging us into nuclear power business and rather get them involved in our side. I believe it is the time to stand up against such unjustifiable act.

Profile of Masako Sakata:
Documentary Filmmaker. Featured the effects of Agent Orange (toxic herbicide) sprayed by the U.S. in Vietnam during Vietnam War in her 2007 film “Agent Orange - a Personal Requiem”. The film won the Special Prize at Paris International Environmental Film Festival.
In 2011 Sakata released “Living the Silent Spring” featuring the on-going reality of victims of Agent Orange both in Vietnam and the United States that could be one version depicted in Rachel Carson’s prophetic warning fifty years ago.

Original Article by Masako Sakata  ( http://wan.or.jp/reading/?cat=41)  June 9, 2012
Translated by Yoko Hayami