Complaints against husbands

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

The McKinstrys’ “Mr. Wrong: Complaints Against Husbands” chapter in our Twentieth Century East Asia readings argues that:
“an American reading through all these querulous letters from wives might easily conclude that Japanese women must surely be among earth’s most miserable creatures…However, like many aspects of another society that people try to understand in terms of their own experiences, the situation for Japanese women, in spite of all the evidence of male privilege, remains more complex and frequently very different from what one might assume. The more one learns about Japanese male-female relations, the more one realizes that the position of women in Japan is strong and secure. Complaints by wives are better understood in terms of the roles that a Japanese woman expects to fill. For example, a Japanese female expects to have things her own way around the home. In addition, complaining about one’s husband does not necessarily have the same associations in Japan as it does in the United States” (21).
I find these statements to be smug, generalizing, and poorly supported by the McKinstrys’ writing. Opening the chapter by writing off the “American reading” of Japanese cultural texts concerning incidents (as set apart from equally important but less empirical ideas like patriarchy) of verbal abuse, sexual assault, economic entrapment in Japanese domestic spheres as harsh and narrow, the McKinstrys do little in subsequent pages to make clear just how the “one” who has learned more about Japanese male-female relations is supposed to “read” these letters. To an American audience, such a shabby follow-through after the opening pot-shot is insulting and irresponsible – especially when domestic violence is concerned. The McKinstry’s hollow introduction, smacking of Yuko Ogasawara’s in Office Ladies and Salaried Men: Power, Gender, and Work in Japanese Companies, raises the issue of good academic argument. Breaking free from scholarship’s old dichotomies – especially where moral issues and value judgements are at stake – is the continual challenge to academia and the new frontiers for thought that success in this brings is the sweet reward. Complicating these judgements can open dialogue to new ideas. But as the McKinstrys demonstrate, it can also simply make a mess of things. Their introduction and their writing do not open the letters and responses they martial in their chapter to productive new interpretations – rather, they unsuccessfully undercut the voices in these texts, leaving me annoyed, slightly offended, and not particularly convinced.

[Author]

Posts