The monthly magazines' WiLL and Hanada, which are now on sale, are filled with genuine articles and editorials. And yet, the price is only 950 yen (including consumption tax).
A friend of mine who is an avid reader is fond of saying that "nothing is as cheap as a book," and both magazines demonstrate that this is true.
Every Japanese citizen should go to the nearest bookstore right now to subscribe.
The genuine editorials and articles in both journals are a must-read not only for the Japanese but also for people worldwide.
I have been letting people around the world know as much as I can through this column.
Japan is a country where the turntable of civilization is turning along with the United States. Japan is a country that has to lead the world for the next 170 years, along with the United States.
It is only natural that the world's best papers are being published day and night in Japan.
Until July 2010, when this column appeared, it had not disseminated these papers to the world at all.
It is what makes today's world so unstable and extremely dangerous.
I did not know until August seven years ago that there are many leftist pedophiles with a masochistic view of history among those who graduated from Tokyo University and Kyoto University.
They are the most foolish people who have diminished Japan's national power and, as a result, have contributed to the evil of China.
Why are people like them being mass-produced?
Most of them are children of middle to wealthy upper-middle-class families.
Both parents are well-educated, they are subscribers to the Asahi Shimbun, and they watch NHK news programs in their living rooms.
Since they were children, they have only taken courses to go on to the University of Tokyo and Kyoto University.
Most of them must have attended cram schools from a young age.
They are not the ones like me, who played all kinds of games and swam in rivers and oceans in the summer.
They are not the ones like me, who played all kinds of games and swam in rivers and oceans in the summer. In other words, most of them did not play around with their childhood friends.
In this chapter, I would like to share with the Japanese people and the rest of the world the thesis of Ms. Kumiko Takeuchi, a real scholar (animal behavior researcher) who deserves to have studied at Kyoto University.
I was a subscriber to the Asahi Shimbun until August seven years ago, and I had never even heard of her. It is a terrible story.
I have already mentioned that I have a great deal of respect for her.
Women who do not understand their place compete with armpit hair
The end of "Women who do not understand their place" who link even the most minor thing to "gender discrimination
When She grew armpit hair
A woman who doesn't know what she's doing.
After Mr. Yoshiro Mori's comment, "You're so discerning," posts with this hashtag have been spreading on Twitter.
Many of the posts were to the effect of "oppose discrimination against women" or "don't force femininity on me" and were probably posted mainly by feminists and liberals.
The March 19 issue of "Shukan Friday" ran a feature article titled "Let's go with 'who do not understand their place,'" and a street demonstration held on March 8, International Women's Day, featured the slogan "I don't care! I don't care! I don't care! I don't care! At a street demonstration held on March 8 to coincide with International Women's Day, voices rang out, "Wakimaenai!
The Japanese word "wakimaeru" is often ambiguous, and the foreign media translated Mori's statement as "understands their place.
A woman who does not understand her place is, in a word, a woman who cannot read the atmosphere.
Recently, the voices of women who can't read the atmosphere - assertive women who believe that only they are right - are getting louder.
Feminist Yumi Ishikawa wrote on Instagram, "I'm trying to stop treating all my body hair now," and posted a photo of her fluffy armpit hair.
She also posted a photo of her fuzzy armpit hair. She complained about gender discrimination, saying that men can grow armpit hair, but only women have to shave.
While the same feminists voiced their support for this post, many other women and men commented that it was up to them to do what they wanted. From the perspective of a woman, I think that even men shave their beards every day.
One of the most famous women who grew armpit hair is Ms. Kaori Kuroki, a "sexy armpit hair actress" in the late 1980s.
She dubbed armpit hair as pubic hair, which led to sexual arousal for many men.
The reason why armpit hair and pubic hair are coarse is that apocrine sweat glands, which produce smelly sweat, are concentrated in the armpit and pubic area, filling them with odor and tempting males.
Ms. Kuroki strategically grew armpit hair to seduce men, but I recommend that you should remove it.
Ms. Ishikawa is the one who initially led the #KUTOO movement to protest against the fact that women are required to wear pumps and heels in the Japanese workplace.
As a woman, I strongly support this movement.
When I wear pointed pumps, my toes get cramped and painful, and I can't walk long distances.
Even now, pumps are sometimes required as "formal wear" for women in sales positions.
I want Ms. Ishikawa to make "#KUTOO" a health issue for the world's women rather than a gender issue.
There are many more unthinkable episodes of women who don't know any better.
Ms. Saori Ikeuchi, a former member of the House of Representatives of the Communist Party, claims that being hit by a man on a station platform is "discrimination against women.
When Ms. Ikeuchi got on the train, she collided with a man who was getting off the train simultaneously.
She followed him, saying that the man had intentionally hit her, and said, "It hurts, you should apologize.
Even without the common sense that the person getting off the train has priority, would it discriminate against women just because a man bumped into a woman?
I also bump into people on station platforms, but I have never felt discriminated against.
Ms. Ikeuchi's words and actions have been questioned on the Internet.
In addition, singer Masashi Sada's "domineering husband declaration" was again highlighted as being discriminatory against women (if you read the lyrics carefully, it says that he tried to be a domineering husband, but in the end, he can't win over women), and the "News Station" (TV Asahi) web commercial saying that "gender equality is outdated" was criticized as being feminist.
Feminists tend to criticize even "trivial things" by linking them to discrimination against women.
If you want to eliminate discrimination against women, you should direct your energy to women discriminated against in Muslim areas.
If they cannot do so, they may be said to be in "lukewarm water" and calling for the elimination of discrimination.
Females Are Stronger in the Animal World
In recent years, there have been calls for a "gender-free" society, one that is not bound by the division of roles based on gender.
Recently, FamilyMart's private brand of side dishes, "Mom's Restaurant," has been bearing the brunt of the gender-free movement.
It all started when three high school students who participated in a program to think about gender equality started a signature campaign asking Famima to change the brand name, saying, "If we don't change the name, we will instill in society the sense that it is natural for 'mothers' to prepare meals.
Although the signature drive failed, it was a glimpse of the world becoming gender-free.
It sounds politically correct at first glance, but biologically it is impossible because the logic is entirely different between males and females.
The main principle of animals is that the female chooses the male.
Once a mammalian female becomes pregnant, there is a gestation and lactation period. While the child is suckling frequently, she does not come into estrus or ovulate, so she cannot have another child.
Only after the lactation period question is over does ovulation begin, and the next child is obtained.
It means that females are in a yearly cycle.
Males, on the other hand, ejaculate once and get another chance soon after.
He may or may not be able to have children, but he has plenty of chances.
If a male has many chances and a female does not have many chances, the female will want to leave as many "good quality children" as possible if she is going to have the same number of children.
Therefore, they choose their mates very strictly.
On the other hand, Males think that they can just hit a few and hope that one day they will be lucky.
In other words, in the animal world, females choose males, and females can't be oppressed.
It would be a big mistake, then, to lump the roles of females and males together.
In the first place, ideas such as feminism and gender freedom were introduced from the West.
In Europe and the United States, women's rights are low from a religious point of view. There is a strong tendency for homosexuals to turn cold shoulders, and movements for discrimination against women and gender-free have begun to occur.
To give an example between Japanese and American couples, husbands in American couples do not share their wives an allowance in many cases.
As a result, women are forced to work.
On the other hand, Japanese wives often manage their husbands' savings, and some of them even buy houses and cars with their husbands' money without permission.
In the end, Japanese feminists are nothing more than "Western-obsessed" women who admire the West.
"Living longer" is discrimination.
The World Economic Forum has released its Gender Gap Index 2021, which quantifies the disparity between men and women by country, and Japan ranks 120th.
In response to the fact that Japan was ranked 120th out of 156 countries globally in terms of gender equality, the Asahi Shimbun (April 1) ran a major feature article on pages 1, 3, 7, and 33, criticizing the government.
＊I wonder how stupid the Asahi Shimbun is. Those who subscribe to the Asahi Shimbun for purposes other than checking it out and those who believe their editorials should be ashamed of themselves.＊
The top five countries are, from top to bottom, Iceland, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, and Sweden.
Except for New Zealand, these are all Scandinavian countries that claim to be "welfare states."
The rankings are determined in four areas: political participation, economic participation, education, and health and survival.
The last item that surprises me every time and makes me wonder if they are still doing it is the ratio of males to females at birth and the percentage of healthy life expectancy.
In biology, it is a given that males are born slightly more often than females at birth and that females have a longer healthy life expectancy than males, but even this is a gender disparity.
There are slightly more males than females at birth because biologically, males are more likely to die during their lifetime, meaning that they are born a little more than females so that when they reach reproductive age, the sex ratio is to one.
There are three main reasons why women live longer.
The first is that testosterone, a typically male hormone, suppresses the immune system, making men more vulnerable to diseases in general and more prone to diseases such as cancer.
The second reason is that women have XX sex chromosomes, and men have XY sex chromosomes. There are many vital genes related to immunity on the X. Women with two Xs can compensate for mutations in the immunity gene on one X by using the corresponding gene on the other.
The third reason is that estrogen, a female hormone, softens blood vessels, making them less susceptible to myocardial infarction, and estrogen also suppresses the death of cells that are difficult to regenerate, such as nerve cells and heart muscle cells.
However, liberals are ignoring these biological facts and trying to correct the lifespan gap. It is insanity.
When it comes to the statistics of the gender gap, judging only by the numbers can lead to misunderstanding the true nature of the problem.
If we look at the example of Sweden, the percentage of women in the parliament is about 40‰. Still, it is not because the number of women members has naturally increased, but a quota system called "quota system" has been used to set quotas for women.
In this way, Sweden has promoted the advancement of women in society. In Sweden, however, the adverse effects of this system are occurring.
According to "The Struggle for the Welfare State: Lessons from Sweden" (Chuko Shinsho) by Tatsuo Takeda, an expert on Sweden's domestic situation, Sweden in the 1950s and 1960s was a safe country where wallets left behind in the evening would be returned to their destination in the morning. According to data from the end of the 1990s, the overall incidence of criminal crimes was 17 times higher than that of Japan during the same period, rape was more than 20 times higher, and robbery was seven times higher an unbelievable figure.
American scholars and others have pointed out that women are the cause of the increase in crime.
Today's Swedish women are struck by "egalitarianism" in addition to the "individualism" and "rationality" that the original Swedes have, and the desire for independence becomes more assertive and emotionally turbulent. Women's liberation and improving status are now more critical than "marital love."
Men instinctively seek tenderness and homely warmth, so the relationship between men and women does not work. They are caught in a whirlpool of human mistrust and loneliness, resulting in more crime.
In this way, we can see that the reality of a welfare state where men and women are equal is not a prosperous society at all, as the truth is dismal even though it claims equality in numerical terms.
Equality includes substantive equality (equality of results), formal equality (equality of opportunity), and equality under the law, but liberals seek substantive equality.
If we focus only on the results, we lose sight of the essence of things.
However, liberals are troublesome because they switch purposes and means and do whatever they think is right.
The family is destroyed.
The liberals are putting a lot of effort into selective surnames.
The key to selective surname separation is the word "selective" rather than just "married couple."
In China and Korea, where married couples are allowed to use different surnames, they take their original surname, and the child usually takes the father's surname.
Therefore, there is no ambiguity or confusion in the family register.
However, if it is made "selective," each couple may or may not have a different surname. The children's surname may become a mess as to whether they take their father's or mother's name; the family register may become an individual unit.
If this happens, it will diminish the family's sense of unity, and the family may even be broken up.
In Sweden, where it adopted the selective surname system, the marriage rate decreased by more than 40%, the divorce rate more than doubled, and the number of children born out of wedlock to men and women who are not legally married increased 50%.
As a result, the number of single-mother families and single-father families has increased.
When one or both of these families remarry, they inevitably become "stepfamilies" where there is no blood relation in the family.
If the family ties are strong, the children will be aware of the trouble they will cause the family if they do something wrong, which will deter them from committing crimes.
However, I think that this deterrent does not work so well in stepfamilies.
In the first place, a man's "true intention" is not to raise a child who is not related to him as if he were his child.
The risk of child abuse is dozens of times higher in a stepfamily than in an average family.
If you look at the animal world, males do not raise children that are not blood-related.
For example, in the world of the Hanuman langur monkey, male A has a harem (a group of one male and many females) with several females. If a group of males led by another male B (although only B is willing, the rest are reluctant) attacks the harem and expels male A and his sons, male B kills all-male A's babies.
As I mentioned earlier, mammalian females do not come into estrus or ovulate and do not get pregnant when there are suckling children.
We don't kill females and even their children because we can make them our wives or future wives.
It is believed that the reason why only human males raise children without blood ties is that they have no choice but to do so in many cases because it would be bad for their appearance if rumors of abuse spread, the relatives on their wives' side would retaliate, or they want their wives to have their own children in a good mood.
Kiyomi Tsujimoto and Mizuho Fukushima have been arguing in the Diet to introduce selective surnames for married couples as if they were representing public opinion. Still, according to a survey by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 96% of people choose their husband's surname.
From the perspective of animal behavior, this result shows that women are trying to sell their "debt of gratitude" by abandoning their surnames and taking their husbands' surnames to take control after marriage.
Men live off of their unfounded pride, so they are reluctant to take on the gender of their wife's side.
Women don't have as much pride as men and are less resistant to taking their husband's names.
The feminists themselves are trying to destroy such a "much-valued strategy."
Please, feminists, stop it!
