Strange cultural differences people don't think about.

[Morkonan]

I think it this I was primarily commenting upon, rather than any particular reflection upon the "lightweightness" of Americans.
Your point about age is probably it though, I am obviously hanging out with my approaching middle aged peers not a bunch of frat boys.
I encountered a general air of disapproval surrounding alcohol similar to that I would associate with hard drugs in the UK or Europe . . . . I find this particularly strange when its coming from people whose job it is to either make or sell the stuff*.

Strange. That's not the prevailing attitude towards alcohol in the US. Can you relate any of the circumstances surrounding this, keeping your privacy in mind, etc?

There are some interesting parrallels, AFAIK, between certain regional "bar cultures" and some in Europe: The "neighborhood bars" in high-density urban areas (cities) like New York. Though, these days, I don't know how common they are. But, I remember some studies that looked at how similar these small bars were to small pubs in the UK and Europe. That's not surprising considering the ethnic roots of many people in New York, which has/had a large immigrant population that tended to settle in the same areas, continuing their cultural traditions. They managed to create ghettos (not the bad kind) with full services like a bar, grocery, church, etc all within walking distance, all there just to serve their relatively small community. I can see some of the necessity, given how big New York is/was back then when these areas were established. But, it's amazing to see a culture perpetuate itself surrounded by so many other diverse cultures and those, in turn, permeated by "America."

The British drinking culture is often said to have arisen basically out of the principle of "work hard, play hard". . . .

This is/was generally still true. It's easy to overlook these days, with Trump screaming about "immigrants" all the time, but the US was populated by immigrants... enthusiastically. Many of the traditions and attitudes they had "in the old country" were transported to the US and incorporated into our "melting pot" of cultures.

Now my impression of the American work ethic is similar (although perhaps not quite so fatal as Victorian Britain!), Americans work hard, long hours are expected if you desire success, statutory holiday allowance is nil and workers rights are minimal.
Seems like the kind of environment that would also breed a heavy drinking culture, although I admit to not knowing history well and its seems likely that perhaps it did and that's what sparked prohibition. . . . . it is interesting however that the attitude seems to have persisted despite the short-lived and unpopular nature of prohibition.

We're undergoing a long-foreseen change in work. "Factory and simple assembly labor" is basically expiring, as it should (IMO). Unskilled labor can not easily find jobs that provide a living wage like they used to and they're forced into basic service/commercial industries, for the most part. Labor Unions are on the decline in many industries that still have those sorts of labor forces in play. "Collective Bargaining" where it could be most applicable has been somewhat superseded by a very mobile workforce that is much more comfortable with changing employment. Considering that few industries offer any "Pension Plans" that are non-transferable, labor loyalty is fairly low. That does also mean that competition for labor can be high at times, which is a very positive thing for labor benefits. But, that's for skilled labor - Unskilled labor in the US is the most hard hit segment.

But, "worker rights" is still a huge thing here. I'm not sure what specifics you might be thinking of, but they may simply be different than what you would consider the norm. I have no doubt that most US workers would consider some labor benefits/"Rights" in Europe/elsewhere somewhat weird. Highly desirable for those employed persons, but a bit frustrating for some in management roles I'd assume. ie: Holiday allowances vary, with the least liberal ones providing mandatory minimums offset by increased pay if necessary. Work hours have limits, minimum wages are enforced, subcontracted individuals are highly regulated, etc.. There are also a number of Federal Agencies involved in making sure that labor laws are followed. And, in any sufficiently large employer, litigation is always a fear. Human Resource departments which oversee employees and their relation to the company as well as the maintenance of applicable law are typically very strict about protecting the rights of labor. (Up to a certain point, that is.)

The US has one of the most productive workforces in the world:

Wiki-GDP per hour worked
15 of the most productive countries in the world

(OECD data tables were down at the time of this post.)

We work longer hours than many, but at least they're productive!

*I only recently learned that in addition to not being allowed to drink or purchase alcohol, Muslims are also not permitted to sell it
This makes perfect sense but regardless came as something of a revelation because I am sold alcohol by Muslims in shops pretty bloody routinely without even a hint of a sneer. I thus kind of assumed they were fine with it as long as only heathens like me drank it.

The last bit is not far from the truth. There are also cultures where that is the case, where liquor store owners don't mind selling poison to "devils." (Anyone that isn't "one of us.") However, Muslim practices vary in that regard. Most would refrain from consuming alcohol, though. I've known some that have a much more liberal view towards alcohol consumption, but no practicing ones that didn't speak out against inebriation. (I'm no expert on this, though.)

YT - It's made from honey

Some Christian denominations also have similar attitudes towards alcohol. For instance, "Southern Baptists" and, perhaps, "Evaneglical Christians" may have strict taboos against alcohol consumption. So do "Jehovah's Witnesses" and "Mormons," with both having additional restrictions against things like caffeine and nicotine. (Corrections welcomed.)

[Bishop149]

Strange. That's not the prevailing attitude towards alcohol in the US. Can you relate any of the circumstances surrounding this, keeping your privacy in mind, etc?

Most of the incidences that gave me this impression I listed in my previous post.
Drink more than about a pint in any particular place and I got looks equivalent to those I'd get if I chose to ummmm "powder my nose" in the UK.
The states involved (in case its relevant) were Florida (mostly), Michigan, Idaho and Washington . . . . I found California to be somewhat more liberal but this might have been an artefact specific to San Francisco (the only city in which I spent any time and well known for its rather unique culture!)

But, "worker rights" is still a huge thing here. I'm not sure what specifics you might be thinking of, but they may simply be different than what you would consider the norm. I have no doubt that most US workers would consider some labor benefits/"Rights" in Europe/elsewhere somewhat weird. Highly desirable for those employed persons, but a bit frustrating for some in management roles I'd assume. ie: Holiday allowances vary, with the least liberal ones providing mandatory minimums offset by increased pay if necessary. Work hours have limits, minimum wages are enforced, subcontracted individuals are highly regulated, etc.. There are also a number of Federal Agencies involved in making sure that labor laws are followed. And, in any sufficiently large employer, litigation is always a fear. Human Resource departments which oversee employees and their relation to the company as well as the maintenance of applicable law are typically very strict about protecting the rights of labor. (Up to a certain point, that is.)

The main things I was think of in relation to this were:
- Statutory holiday allowance, I know that individual workplaces can grant it but as I understand it the LEGAL minimum is zero. For reference in the UK its 5.6 weeks a year. Most of my US friends are also colleagues and thus are academic research scientists . . .a "good" job, no? There allowance is still a fraction of ours*
- Paid Maternity pay, similar, employers can grant it at their discretion but again the legal minimum is zero. For reference in the Uk its 39 weeks, 6 weeks at 90% pay and the rest at an admittedly low rate of £140 a week.
- Being fired at the drop of a hat. In the UK the ONLY circumstance under which this is allowed is "Gross Misconduct", which is often behaviour of the sort that might well constitute a criminal offence. In the US you can be fired almost at the whim of the employer. There is only a fairly short list of things you aren't allowed to be fired for, which are mostly human rights based, you know race, religion, sexuality etc.
- Linking of medical care to employment. Ok this one is a little more complex and not strictly speaking solely under the topic of "Workers rights" but I think it merits inclusion. As I understand it there are only two ways to get decent medical insurance in the US, 1: Be quite wealthy, 2: Have a job that grants you such a plan as a benefit. Combined with the "we can fire you for almost anything" this gives employers a MASSIVE stick with which to beat their employees. In the most extreme cases it amounts to the power to literally kill them (or their family members) by proxy. An employee with a desperately sick child would do almost literally anything to keep a job that covered those medical expenses. . . . it's bloody close to indentured servitude.

I'll just pick up on your point about litigation, the company my wife works for routinely breaks employment law. . . . they know they can get away with it because:
- Most of their employees at 16-25 are ignorant of the law and would have no idea how to go about litigating and probably couldn't be bothered with the hassle anyway.
- Even if they DID lawyer up, it would be a case of the legal resources of a multi billion dollar company verses those of a teenager who can barely make rent.
- In the unlikely event they lost a case, well that one settlement is probably a price well worth paying for the extra profits gained by exploiting your workforce.
This in a nutshell is why Unions are needed.
I was under the impression Union membership was even rarer in the US than it is here, where it has been declining since the 80's.

*In fact the reason my friend got married on the 4th of July is because its one of the few days they could both get off work. As I travelled around on that trip I discovered this was INCREDIBLY common, my answer to the standard "Hey, why are you visiting the US?" question was: "My friend is getting married on the 4th of July! Fancy that!". . . I was stunned how often I got the response; "Cool, so did we!".
I'd say more than half of the couples I spoke to also got married on a US public holiday, for work reasons.

[Morkonan]

Most of the incidences that gave me this impression I listed in my previous post.
Drink more than about a pint in any particular place and I got looks equivalent to those I'd get if I chose to ummmm "powder my nose" in the UK.
The states involved (in case its relevant) were Florida (mostly), Michigan, Idaho and Washington . . . . I found California to be somewhat more liberal but this might have been an artefact specific to San Francisco (the only city in which I spent any time and well known for its rather unique culture!)

That's weird. I can only attribute that to either your perception or you were ordering a second round of wine while receiving Communion at a church... "Thank you, minister, that was great! Do you have any Chablis?" I've never encountered the attitude you're describing.

The main things I was think of in relation to this were:
- Statutory holiday allowance, I know that individual workplaces can grant it but as I understand it the LEGAL minimum is zero. For reference in the UK its 5.6 weeks a year. Most of my US friends are also colleagues and thus are academic research scientists . . .a "good" job, no? There allowance is still a fraction of ours*

It has been a long time since I had to deal with US Labor Law specifics. Some things may have changed. But, AFAIK, you are correct - The employer is not bound to give vacation time. And, certainly, they are required to give pay for time actually worked. But, that does not mean that employees aren't frequently given vacation time or increased pay rates if they have to work during popular Holidays.

- Paid Maternity pay, similar, employers can grant it at their discretion but again the legal minimum is zero. For reference in the Uk its 39 weeks, 6 weeks at 90% pay and the rest at an admittedly low rate of £140 a week.

Family Medical Leave Act - However, it has exclusions and does not provide for "paid" absences.

- Being fired at the drop of a hat. In the UK the ONLY circumstance under which this is allowed is "Gross Misconduct", which is often behaviour of the sort that might well constitute a criminal offence. In the US you can be fired almost at the whim of the employer. There is only a fairly short list of things you aren't allowed to be fired for, which are mostly human rights based, you know race, religion, sexuality etc.

"At the drop of a hat" is somewhat misleading. But, yes, employees can be fired. They can then also receive "Unemployment Insurance" benefits. That is an administered program the employer pays for based upon the number of employees they have. And, those rates will increase for each employee that seeks benefits after being "fired at the drop of a hat." IOW - It is not in the employer's best interest to just unjustly fire people whenever they wish.

- Linking of medical care to employment. Ok this one is a little more complex and not strictly speaking solely under the topic of "Workers rights" but I think it merits inclusion.... it's bloody close to indentured servitude.

Yes, that's a tough one. And, we're still coping with trying to construct something that is fair. But, employer-provided health insurance doesn't stop on Day O for covered employees and there's usually an extension period, AFAIK. For those who can not afford health insurance, there are government programs like Medicaid. Unfortunately, a lot of people are caught between having too much and not have little enough to qualify, at times... ie: Stuck in the sweet spot where they have to be poorer than they are now in order to get help. But, can't afford anything else, anyway.

I'll just pick up on your point about litigation, the company my wife works for routinely breaks employment law. . . . they know they can get away with it because:

If they're breaking the law, it's not going to require anything other than the employee reporting them to the Department of Labor. That doesn't mean, however, the employee will immediately receive civil damages or compensation. But, if the employer is found to have broken the law, a legion of attorneys would likely appear offering deferred/compensated fees based upon how much they could sue for in a civil court.

- Most of their employees at 16-25 are ignorant of the law and would have no idea how to go about litigating and probably couldn't be bothered with the hassle anyway.

It is an unfortunate thing that we don't make it a habit of protecting people from their own ignorance. I think we should. But, if someone is ignorant of employment laws they should act to correct their ignorance when it is made known to themselves. But, in the interest of protecting the ignorance, every employer is required to display "Labor Law" notices and posters in prominent view of employees. You'll usually find these plastered all over the walls in Employee Break Rooms, near water fountains and bathrooms, etc... There are required postings for every State's labor laws and contact information for Labor agencies and further information. Employees must also be informed of certain rights as a matter of their employment and training in many cases.

An example of a generic Labor Law poster - 1 These things generally get posted all over the place, but particularly, and in accordance with the law, in places employees would be likely to frequent. If an employee doesn't read them, it's not the employer's fault.

- Even if they DID lawyer up, it would be a case of the legal resources of a multi billion dollar company verses those of a teenager who can barely make rent.

That depends on what they're "lawyering up" about. If the employer committed an illegal act, no "lawering up" is necessary - They report the act to the appropriate agency. If they are "lawyering up" for a civil case, that's a different matter.

- In the unlikely event they lost a case, well that one settlement is probably a price well worth paying for the extra profits gained by exploiting your workforce.

While things like this do happen, it seems you're painting a somewhat dystopian picture of things. Bad actors do exist and if they're bad enough, they generally end up going bankrupt. That isn't saying that employers do not attempt to make money on the backs of their labor... but that's what they do, anyway. And, if they do it unfairly? Well, that's wrong. But, not every employer out there acts like you do. I know I certainly didn't.

"Exploiting" the workforce is what employers do. I think people forget that, these days. Too many bright-eyed young people jumping into the wide world of "real life employment" seem to have some sort of idea that the business they are working for is somehow supposed to exist for them alone. That is not how real life works. It doesn't mean an employer can't treat their employees very well, but it does mean that the employer can not ignore its obligations to stay in business by attempting to make enough money to pay its employees...

I do agree, however, that an employer that unfairly exploits their labor or that preys on the misfortunes of others to extract labor is "evil." Evil is always wrong.

This in a nutshell is why Unions are needed.
I was under the impression Union membership was even rarer in the US than it is here, where it has been declining since the 80's.

Unions are still present fairly strongly in certain industries and professions, but their collective bargaining power has reduced over the years. Many of the things unions were originally formed to combat have been recognized and are now combated by Federal and State agencies specifically designed for that purpose.

*In fact the reason my friend got married on the 4th of July is because its one of the few days they could both get off work. As I travelled around on that trip I discovered this was INCREDIBLY common, my answer to the standard "Hey, why are you visiting the US?" question was: "My friend is getting married on the 4th of July! Fancy that!". . . I was stunned how often I got the response; "Cool, so did we!".
I'd say more than half of the couples I spoke to also got married on a US public holiday, for work reasons.

Obviously, it depends on the type of job they're working, what the labor competition for that is and what inducements for hiring qualified employees the employer has put into place. In many cases, employees may not be eligible for many of the perks of their job until they've worked there long enough. And, in some cases, especially in low-skilled positions, there will be few written benefits for most employees and they have to rely on a good relationship with their employer.

I haven't worked every job or been in a hiring capacity in every profession, but I don't know of any employer that wouldn't, given sufficient notice and the ability to do so, attempt to arrange and coordinate a holiday for a worker who was getting married. It's possible, but it's certainly not normal for an employer to refuse to attempt to work out something in such a situation. Was the employer notified within sufficient time and/or attempts made to work out a solution?

While I won't argue that some of the situations you present are certainly plausible, some of the specifics you have mentioned are not as common, IMO, as you characterize them to be. BUT, and it's a big "but" , it is true that some workers in certain industries are often at the mercy of their employer in many situations. But, those are generally unskilled labor sorts of jobs where competition for the job, itself, is greater than the employer's competition for labor. (ie: Anyone can do the job and many people lacking skills compete for them.) In some cases, certain highly skilled jobs have "seniority" sorts of positions where new employees end up not obtaining many of the privileges that more longer-term employees are afforded. I'm thinking things like entry-level medical/nursing positions, where there most definitely must be someone on duty and the FNG gets the crappy rotations until they prove themselves. This surely isn't an indication of general bad employment practices, just simple work culture - The FNG always gets shafted. But, next year, they'll be the one benefiting from the next FNG getting shafted by being forced to work the Holiday schedule.

[Bishop149]

It is an unfortunate thing that we don't make it a habit of protecting people from their own ignorance. I think we should. But, if someone is ignorant of employment laws they should act to correct their ignorance when it is made known to themselves. But, in the interest of protecting the ignorance, every employer is required to display "Labor Law" notices and posters in prominent view of employees. You'll usually find these plastered all over the walls in Employee Break Rooms, near water fountains and bathrooms, etc... There are required postings for every State's labor laws and contact information for Labor agencies and further information. Employees must also be informed of certain rights as a matter of their employment and training in many cases.

An excellent point, the display of labour law information in such a way does occur in the UK too but those providing are almost always Unions. If a workplace has no Union presence the information will not be displayed, AFAIK we have no law requiring employers to do so. You might have one up on us there.

"Exploiting" the workforce is what employers do. I think people forget that, these days. Too many bright-eyed young people jumping into the wide world of "real life employment" seem to have some sort of idea that the business they are working for is somehow supposed to exist for them alone. [snip] I do agree, however, that an employer that unfairly exploits their labor or that preys on the misfortunes of others to extract labor is "evil." Evil is always wrong.

Good lord Mork, i don't think you've ever said a truer thing. . . . are you a secretly a closet Communist?
The "evil" you've described is the very basis of Capitalism.

Obviously, it depends on the type of job they're working, what the labor competition for that is and what inducements for hiring qualified employees the employer has put into place.

It might be that. The people I was mostly talking to were either: my friends and colleagues or my AirBnB hosts.
Now the former are mostly research scientists, our working conditions are famously awful and mostly self-inflicted. By way of example the 28 days holiday I'm allowed. . . . I've only ever used all of it in ONE year of my employment, they year I got married. We're allowed to carry 6 days over to the next year. . . . I ALWAYS have more than that left, often a lot more. What can I say, scientists are dumb workaholics.
Of the latter I have found my hosts to be mostly service / construction workers but there's also a weirdly disproportionate number of emergency service workers in there . . . I have stayed with SOOO many cops and firefighters.

[Morkonan]

Good lord Mork, i don't think you've ever said a truer thing. . . . are you a secretly a closet Communist?
The "evil" you've described is the very basis of Capitalism.

"Exploitation" is not necessarily an evil thing. IOW - Businesses hire workers in order to make use of their labor. They "exploit" their workers, but that doesn't mean it's completely unfair.

I'm a fiscal conservative that is pro-capitalism, but I acknowledge the necessity of oversight and a government instituting certain artificial constraints to prevent abuse and to promote a healthy society. "Communism" is science-fiction for political science fans...

It might be that. The people I was mostly talking to were either: my friends and colleagues or my AirBnB hosts.
Now the former are mostly research scientists, our working conditions are famously awful and mostly self-inflicted. By way of example the 28 days holiday I'm allowed. . . . I've only ever used all of it in ONE year of my employment, they year I got married. We're allowed to carry 6 days over to the next year. . . . I ALWAYS have more than that left, often a lot more. What can I say, scientists are dumb workaholics.
Of the latter I have found my hosts to be mostly service / construction workers but there's also a weirdly disproportionate number of emergency service workers in there . . . I have stayed with SOOO many cops and firefighters.

Emergency Services employees do have some issues with getting days off. It's not like someone can just close down their department for the day. They work hard and difficult hours. But, they often get compensated fairly well. Pensions, Unions, certain Flex Time stuff, benefits/health-care, etc... We used to employ a lot of firefighters. I set it up so they could control their own schedules. It was typical for firefighters to "moonlight" since they only worked three to four days, max, a week at their firefighter job. (Stayed at the station, ate there, slept there, so they'd max their hours out quickly even if there wasn't a fire.) As long as their shift-positions were filled, they controlled their own schedule and negotiated among themselves who would work a particular day. Worked out great.

We "almost" put in a police substation. That's someplace cops can go to do their paperwork, take a dump, get some coffee, etc. Cops stopped by frequently to grab a free cup of coffee from our reception area or just to check in with us to see how everything was going. (Waste time doing nothing. ) It was good PR with an agency that we trusted to keep an eye on our property and patrol the area. IMO, they had it pretty rough in terms of arranging schedules and the like. The police department was steeped in politics and cliques, everyone trying to get an edge. And, if someone in the department didn't like you, you got the crap assignments. And, if other officers didn't like you... they might take a little longer responding to an assistance call. Some of the tales they told made me glad I wasn't a cop.

From what I've heard, those in pure research do have it tough and some commercial research people are just appliances the employer screws on the benchtop in order to get new patents.

[Mightysword]

I find that amazing! So, teachers use social taboos in order to control discipline in the classroom, but those very same taboos are not reduced in significance due to familiarity with the opposite sex? It has to be mightily reinforced outside of school for it to continue to be effective. As soon as class is over, the overwhelming social/sexual taboo HAS to immediately come into play and remain strong both during other times in school and, especially, outside of school. I'd assume, since I can't find another way to weaken it, that's the case - It remains constantly reinforced outside of that forced arrangement in class.

Yes, the idea is it's consistent across the board, and in a broad spectrum, not just a directly on the topic itself. For example:

- Most of the children books and stories kids were taught all value the inner beauty over outward appearance. The theme used to be beauty is a reward of a great soul, while natural born beauty often attracted misfortune.
- All make up and cosmetic are strictly prohibited during K12 for girls, accessories is allowed as long as they're appropriate (so no piecing in weird place or flashy stuffs). Boys must have short/high proper cut for hair style an no accessories allowed (except watches). And everyone must wear uniform. Not only the kids themselves will face discipline, any offending item are confiscated, and the parents will also get an earful too.

All this and more go toward creating that gender mutual awareness culture. Now comparing to the US culture ...

Do you know or remember JonBenét Ramsey? I read the news about her when I was just middleschooler at the time, and what shocked me wasn't the fact a child just a little younger than me got murdered, but the fact you guys have someone called a child "pageant". I was shocked when I saw a series of her pinned up pictures that made a 6 years old looked like a miniaturization of Marylin Monroe. When I came to the US as a teen, I watched a few commercials aimed as kids and I was surprise as how much sexual content there is. For example, your iconic Barbie pretty much teaches little girls the ideal of fashionable. And I had watched old movie from the 80' that I'm pretty sure were family shows that features kids kissing each others. The US culture probably see nothing wrong with that (cute even), but the result is Western kids are made conscious of the opposite sex in a sexualize way, while Eastern kids also made conscious of the opposite sex but more similar to the manner of a monk. The word 'sexy' is not something you can casually blurt out in most Asian countries, it's considered to be a degenerated word that no appropriate person should say. In fact, even spouse shouldn't call their significant other sexy. I heard middleschoolers here said it a few times here, and amazingly everyone just laugh it off

This leads to the difference in the adult stage. Like I mentioned in recent years there have been a few movement about genders here in the US, and I view some of it as regressing back to what the Asian culture is. While the intention is good, the method is a bit random though. One particular example that I have seen in the last few years is a trend of featuring "bland looking, even ugly" NPCs especially in cRPG. While I understand what the developers want to do, I cringe hard about how pointless and self-serving it is. You go to the mod section of these games and it's flooded with the more glamorous version of the NPC, and there are always as many download as there are copies of the game sold. It's pointless because I don't think you gonna change the now 'adult' who playing these game, if anything you just irritate them, complaining about "ugly" NPC is pretty norm today. It's self-serving because the developers do it for the shake of saying they do something without necessary amount to any real effect. In fact, that's one of my problem with many activism these days, they are more of a show of force rather then substance.

I have always said Culture as a force is far more powerful than any law, even the law of dictator. But to create a culture, you need consistency across the board.

[Morkonan]

....
- Most of the children books and stories kids were taught all value the inner beauty over outward appearance. ..- All make up and cosmetic are strictly prohibited during K12 for girls, ...any offending item are confiscated, and the parents will also get an earful too.

In the US, "dress codes" vary by school district and school. So, some dress codes are much more strict than others.

All this and more go toward creating that gender mutual awareness culture. Now comparing to the US culture ...

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I could write volumes on certain issues surrounding that topic...

Do you know or remember JonBenét Ramsey? I read the news about her when I was just middleschooler at the time, and what shocked me wasn't the fact a child just a little younger than me got murdered, but the fact you guys have someone called a child "pageant".

This is a weird subculture thing. It is not a wide practice. AFAIK, the pageant people put these on to make money from moms wanting to live through their kids and the families that attend these things are the same ones that attend all of them. ie: If there are twenty-eleven child pageants in an area, the competitors are always the same handful of people...

... The US culture probably see nothing wrong with that (cute even), but the result is Western kids are made conscious of the opposite sex in a sexualize way, while Eastern kids also made conscious of the opposite sex but more similar to the manner of a monk.

Keep in mind your own bias. While the sexualization of children is often a topic that's discussed along with other socio-cultural ills, one has to take care to understand certain interpretations. A "first kiss" scene in a movie/television show isn't about sexualizing a child.

The word 'sexy' is not something you can casually blurt out in most Asian countries, it's considered to be a degenerated word that no appropriate person should say. In fact, even spouse shouldn't call their significant other sexy. I heard middleschoolers here said it a few times here, and amazingly everyone just laugh it off

And, that would be viewed as a sexually repressed culture by a Westerner, I would think... As far as middleschoolers goes, you're not seriously thinking that a bunch of giggling middleschoolers set cultural boundaries, right?

This leads to the difference in the adult stage.

Citations needed.

Like I mentioned in recent years there have been a few movement about genders here in the US, and I view some of it as regressing back to what the Asian culture is.

I'm not quite following you, here. IMO, a lot of the gender stuff that's being talked about on social media comes from kids being locked in a room to raise each other while their parents praise the internet for affording them the opportunity to do things other than raise kids.

While the intention is good, the method is a bit random though. One particular example that I have seen in the last few years is a trend of featuring "bland looking, even ugly" NPCs especially in cRPG. While I understand what the developers want to do, I cringe hard about how pointless and self-serving it is. You go to the mod section of these games and it's flooded with the more glamorous version of the NPC, and there are always as many download as there are copies of the game sold. It's pointless because I don't think you gonna change the now 'adult' who playing these game, if anything you just irritate them, complaining about "ugly" NPC is pretty norm today.

Developers may make efforts to make more "normal" looking NPCs, so every character has some distinctive qualities that don't involve T&A, but that doesn't mean they purposefully make "ugly NPC" characters. A lot of that has to do with technical and practical issues.

And, a lot of adolescents play video games and, thus, there's a lot of adolescent males downloading sex mods... 'cause they can. Game makers are not ignorant of this.

It's self-serving because the developers do it for the shake of saying they do something without necessary amount to any real effect.

I don't know of any game that the developers purposefully used to promote an "Ugly NPC Agenda."

In fact, that's one of my problem with many activism these days, they are more of a show of force rather then substance.

^-This is a pretty important topic.

Yes, it's about "empowerment." It's also about "group identity" and a ton of other adolescent imperatives that have been artificially fulfilled by /random.

I have always said Culture as a force is far more powerful than any law, even the law of dictator. But to create a culture, you need consistency across the board.

Laws reflect their culture of origin. Or should, if one wants a stable culture. To "create culture" all one needs is perpetuity over time, through generations. In sixty years (A typical "generation"), will Western "culture" believe that someone who can't identify themselves as any particular sexual gender, who defines themselves as "wolfkind" and who is in love with a stuffed toy animal, that they also enthusiastically engage in sex with, and that finds interaction with other people to be physically and emotionally painful, be considered as "normal" and not have a disorder classified in the latest addition of the American Psychological Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual?

It is difficult to determine what a true "culture" is solely by examining it through one moment of time. One can identify some things that seem to be cultural movements, but that doesn't mean that they will persist. Sometimes, they are responses to other social pressures and forces. (ie: Emergent) Sometimes, these are true "rebellions" and sometimes they're much more artificial than that. (Feminism vs "The 99%")

PS - I didn't mean to offer too much of a "defense." So, what would you say is the most visible difference between your culture of origin and US/Western culture? (IMO, I'd say it would bear on "family." And, in general, and in my opinion, the starkest contrasts between cultures would likely involve defining the nuclear family and family roles.)

[Mightysword]

Keep in mind your own bias. While the sexualization of children is often a topic that's discussed along with other socio-cultural ills, one has to take care to understand certain interpretations. A "first kiss" scene in a movie/television show isn't about sexualizing a child.

That's the thing, it's a bias to you, but it wasn't to me, because we are looking from 2 different frame of culture. And that is just one of many example, by itself it doesn't mean much, but that's why I mentioned the word "full spectrum".

And, that would be viewed as a sexually repressed culture by a Westerner, I would think... As far as middleschoolers goes, you're not seriously thinking that a bunch of giggling middleschoolers set cultural boundaries, right?

And in Asian Culture they flat out tell you they're repressing it, no need to beat around the bush for it. In a way, as a kids they tell you "no mean no", no if but whatsoever. You don't think people like Monk just ignore sex "naturally" do you? If you get caught saying the word "sexy" in school, most of your peers will be put off by it, if it was heard within the earshot of a teacher, you probably gonna earn a slap and trip to the office. Do it again, and your parents will more than likely invited to the school for some face time and receive a lecture of "what the heck do you you teach your kids at home" from the principal. It will never be passed as a joke, regardless of who, when, and where it is said.

Again, consistency is key. The middleschoolers by themselves is hardly the entire boundaries, but certainly is a part of it. I think Asian culture try to avoid having to re-explaining to kids why something is wrong here while the very same thing is not so wrong there.

This leads to the difference in the adult stage.
...

I'm not quite following you, here. IMO, a lot of the gender stuff that's being talked about on social media comes from kids being locked in a room to raise each other while their parents praise the internet for affording them the opportunity to do things other than raise kids.

I already gave you one that have plenty of sub examples in it. Obviously the US's culture consideres it to be a problem seriously enough to have multiple correction vectors: tittle IX, activism, protest, training ...etc... I don't know about your workplace Mork, but mine had everyone go through these training at least once a year. Well, I take this as a sight that the adult here needs "teaching". I sat in these trainings and learnt very little, like I said most of the what taught here I were already taught as a kid. And it wasn't by a person or in one class, it's something that was taught by the parents, relative, teachers, and even your peers consistently through the years of your childhood. It's something "ingrained" about the value of the opposite sex, rather in these training I think they're mostly "don't do this or you'll get into trouble".

In fact, there is no education for the adult in our culture on these things, the society already assume you already know it. There is only retribution and repentance if you screw up as an adult with little sympathy offered.

Like I mentioned in recent years there have been a few movement about genders here in the US, and I view some of it as regressing back to what the Asian culture is.
....
Developers may make efforts to make more "normal" looking NPCs, so every character has some distinctive qualities that don't involve T&A, but that doesn't mean they purposefully make "ugly NPC" characters. A lot of that has to do with technical and practical issues.

I think that excuse works for Egosoft's NPC

Kinda moot, because if you go back 10 or 20 years, you'll see most of cRPG have pretty glamourous NPC comparing to what they are now.

And, a lot of adolescents play video games and, thus, there's a lot of adolescent males downloading sex mods... 'cause they can. Game makers are not ignorant of this.

And this comment make me chuckle it, since it exmplifiar I think the core difference in how the culture approach is handled. The Asian culture tend to do minor steps over a long time to shape certain things, whether the western culture just leave things be and hope for the best, and when a problem become too big to ignore then you guys try to hit it with a hammer.

I certainly didn't mean the extreme sex mods, or cleavage armor for that matter. For example, in a certain cRPG I just played recently, this is the 2 portrait for two characters:

- Octavia: https://www.gamerguides.com/assets/guid ... ropped.jpg
- Valerie: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vjK2s ... NQnTc5.jpg

Now, Valerie's protrait certainly doesn't look too bad, but the fact she's portrait-ed as someone heavenly beauty that should be dedicated to god, in fact 90% of her issue in the game revolving on how beautiful she is. The narrative also spent a great deal of time telling you how pretty Octavia is, but as her portrait ... eh, I have seen real people cosplaying her look 10x better than that portrait. So for the shake of my immersion:

- My Valerie: https://imgur.com/4IBT9eG
- My Ocatvia: https://imgur.com/a/ghZPNxo

I don't know of any game that the developers purposefully used to promote an "Ugly NPC Agenda."

Then you haven't played a lot of western RPG lately. I'll give you one developer to follow: Chris Avelone. You can compare his work in the last 10 years or so to say ... CDkproject and the Witcher, and you'll see what I mean. Here is Yennefer from Witcher 3: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tm2AmBKBCwk/maxresdefault.jpg

^-This is a pretty important topic.
Yes, it's about "empowerment." It's also about "group identity" and a ton of other adolescent imperatives that have been artificially fulfilled by /random.

My people have a proverb: shape a tree when it was young, shape a human when he/she just started to walk. Like I said, a lot of issues that being 'taught' to the adult in Western culture was taught to kids in oriental culture, and again, I think it's more a long the line of teaching the adults how not get into trouble rather appreciate the value. You can make a child believe anything, and you probably already notice how hard it is to change an adult's opinion about something. And this does not limit to just sexual issue btw, it applies to anything: racism, gays, gender ...etc... You can probably stop an adult doing something by tell him "do this and you get sue, or at least we'll character assassinate you on social media so your employer gonna fire you!", but do you believe you can change that person's POV, if that's what they had grew up with? It's something you'll have to do consistently throughout their life.

[Morkonan]

And in Asian Culture they flat out tell you they're repressing it, no need to beat around the bush for it. In a way, as a kids they tell you "no mean no", no if but whatsoever. You don't think people like Monk just ignore sex "naturally" do you? If you get caught saying the word "sexy" in school, most of your peers will be put off by it, if it was heard within the earshot of a teacher, you probably gonna earn a slap and trip to the office. Do it again, and your parents will more than likely invited to the school for some face time and receive a lecture of "what the heck do you you teach your kids at home" from the principal. It will never be passed as a joke, regardless of who, when, and where it is said.

Again, consistency is key. The middleschoolers by themselves is hardly the entire boundaries, but certainly is a part of it. I think Asian culture try to avoid having to re-explaining to kids why something is wrong here while the very same thing is not so wrong there.

Would you believe me if I told you that such a thing probably wouldn't be condoned in a middle-school if a teacher overheard it? And, perhaps, considering the rise of "#metoo" and some pretty radical feminism going on within social media and even in the normal news cycle, most young girls and some male peers might think such a thing was "sexist?"

I already gave you one that have plenty of sub examples in it. Obviously the US's culture consideres it to be a problem seriously enough to have multiple correction vectors: tittle IX, activism, protest, training ...etc...

But, is it a problem or is it a problem? Certainly, it's something that we should all be aware of and conscious of, right? Or...



Ah, the heady days of "The Red Menace." Bloodthirsty agents were lurking around ever corner, ready to abduct our children and brainwash them to be good little Bolshevics... (No slight intended to our wonderful ex-Soviet brothers and sisters. It's for illustrative purposes only.)

So, how many Bolsheviks spies attempting to overthrow the US government were in the average suburban neighborhood back then? According to popular culture, somewhere between a hundred and fifty-thousand.

Was there a serious concern during "The Cold War?" Sure. At that time, tensions were at their highest and there was the serious threat of "Fallout 4" being made a reality. So, of course there was a concern about how significant an impact a spy could have when "the race" was literally neck and neck. The US just wasn't truly aware how powerful US economy and industry was compared to the Soviet's. The amount of control necessary to maintain their end of "the race" eventually broke their system, but we didn't know that. We just thought communist agents were hiding in every bush and that's all we knew...

With today and the participation of people, especially young persons, in political and social-change movements, what is their rabid , unbridled, and often unanswered enthusiasm accomplishing? A few weeks ago there was a documentary special on CNN about "furries." It lauded the therapeutic benefits for young people taking upon themselves the identity of an animal. A plush, furry, animal that wasn't an animal, didn't have any evolutionarily reinforced animal behaviors, did even seek to mimic the animal, but attempted in every way possible to bind people together under the animus of being animal personalities... in furry suits. Of particular note, there was a young adolescent girl that had some very pronounced socialization issues. But, of course "being a furry" was the "answer." Her parents were so very glad, even to the point of tears, that she had finally found herself and could, at long last, find some form of identity that included socialization. Back in my day, we got together and compared comic book collections or our favorite marbles. We even played games. I would have never had to have worried about getting sexual advances from some neckbeard dressed in a fox suit...

What's the point? Yes, there are topics that we should be concerned about "getting right." We should be mindful of improper behavior. We should take care to help our children develop positive social skills and, when necessary, appropriate and constructive therapeutic techniques. However, some people take such things a bit too far. Far too far. And, thanks to the internetz and the widespread use of instant-on-demand social media, the volume knob for certain things we "should all be aware of" is turned to eleven.

I don't know about your workplace Mork, but mine had everyone go through these training at least once a year.

Yes and no. There were few women in my workplace and most of them worked out of the office. We did have yearly training sessions on a variety of topics, especially those required by law or contractual obligation.

How many places have you worked that included a decently even ratio of men and women didn't have at least one pair or several bonking each other?

Well, I take this as a sight that the adult here needs "teaching". I sat in these trainings and learnt very little, like I said most of the what taught here I were already taught as a kid. And it wasn't by a person or in one class, it's something that was taught by the parents, relative, teachers, and even your peers consistently through the years of your childhood. It's something "ingrained" about the value of the opposite sex, rather in these training I think they're mostly "don't do this or you'll get into trouble".

I do agree - I didn't need to be taught not to make unasked for and inappropriate sexual advances towards anyone. Why is that?

...There is only retribution and repentance if you screw up as an adult with little sympathy offered.

"Consequences for one's actions" is part of it. The other part is "Don't poop where you eat."

I think that excuse works for Egosoft's NPC

EXACTLY! My thoughts exactly! (I was specifically going to call them out on that, but figured you'd pick up on the hint. ) Holy crap, who thought the same rendering engine and materials was going to work well with that hideous amorphous blobface with a "Normals and bumpmaps solve every problem" approach in "Rebirth." WTF? I've had better nightmares after eating my ex-wife's cooking... Thankfully, I never played that game. But, I certainly saw the screenshots.

...And this comment make me chuckle it, since it exmplifiar I think the core difference in how the culture approach is handled. The Asian culture tend to do minor steps over a long time to shape certain things, whether the western culture just leave things be and hope for the best, and when a problem become too big to ignore then you guys try to hit it with a hammer.

....
Then you haven't played a lot of western RPG lately. I'll give you one developer to follow: Chris Avelone. You can compare his work in the last 10 years or so to say ... CDkproject and the Witcher, and you'll see what I mean. Here is Yennefer from Witcher 3: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tm2AmBKBCwk/maxresdefault.jpg

That's the "strong woman" meme. You know who that looks like?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xena:_Warrior_Princess

That is, without a doubt, a character look inspired by Lucy Lawless. She's actually very pleasant to look at. She has kept that, too, while still being very adept at playing strong female leads, like in "Babylon 5." All in all, she's pretty darn awesome as an actress while retaining her "femininity" and projecting "strength." The easy way to portray a "strong female" has often been rumored to be accomplished by removing their sexuality or "femininity." In "Terminator 2" what did they do to Linda Hamilton's character? Or, rather, what lengths did Hamilton go to? They went overboard trying to push the "masculine" to offset the "feminine" because some idiots thought that was necessary to make a strong female... Of course, then all the teenage boys fell in temporary love with very athletic females, as if "Ripley" from the Alien franchise wasn't enough... And she didn't have to cut down to 1% body fat to stay "strong."

My people have a proverb: shape a tree when it was young, shape a human when he/she just started to walk. Like I said, a lot of issues that being 'taught' to the adult in Western culture was taught to kids in oriental culture, and again, I think it's more a long the line of teaching the adults how not get into trouble rather appreciate the value. You can make a child believe anything, and you probably already notice how hard it is to change an adult's opinion about something. And this does not limit to just sexual issue btw, it applies to anything: racism, gays, gender ...etc... You can probably stop an adult doing something by tell him "do this and you get sue, or at least we'll character assassinate you on social media so your employer gonna fire you!", but do you believe you can change that person's POV, if that's what they had grew up with? It's something you'll have to do consistently throughout their life.

I am an old fart.

I know this. I do my best to be mindful of that and how my age effects my judgement of social and cultural issues. I judge my own opinions based, partly, on whether or not I am biased to due natural developmental processes that discourages the unfamiliar or strange in favor of the predictable and comfortable.

However, despite all of this, leaving children to be raised by their own unsupervised echo-chambers filled with complete B.S. and absolutely full of ignorance is... not the way we should raise our children. Imagine how many of these children react when after years of blathering about in their own social circles online, 24/7, with legions of their fellows being pleased by their radicalism or conformity, being constantly told how original and valuable their opinions are by "Likes" and "UpVotes," they step out into "the real world" and the first adult they interact with tells them they're an idiot and they should STFU because what they're saying is stupid...

I am convinced that the only time we should pay real and earnest attention to young people is when they dedicate enough energy to something that they are able to get up early enough in the morning to set something on fire and still be able to dance and shout around it before the sun sets.

IMO, we're not taking enough time to "raise" our kids and we're allowing them to raise themselves far too much. I can say this because I raised myself and I know where the pitfalls lie because I experienced them. That may be my own bias speaking, of course. But... there it is.

PS - You CAN change someone's PoV. But, success is more dependent on that person's qualities than it is on your own.

[Mightysword]

Would you believe me if I told you that such a thing probably wouldn't be condoned in a middle-school if a teacher overheard it?

The difference is in my culture, "getting into trouble for saying it" is only a small part of the reason for a kid not saying it, but the main reason because he/she perceive the word as inappropriate to say. And where does that perception came from? Again, it came from consistently across the board. My upbringing taught me one thing: you can give all the lectures about how to behave to a kids, and they will never be as effective as simply setting examples in silent. Kids are not great listeners, but they are masters of imitation. A kid here may not say it where the adults can hear it, but as long as they see the adult themselves use the world and pass it around with laugh, they will most likely perceive it as a cool word that adult uses.

Again, that's why I said a lot of action and activism here are done pretty spontaneous, and I think it's more to benefit the ego of those who give the lessons rather of those who receive it, because it lacks a systematical consistency.

And, perhaps, considering the rise of "#metoo" and some pretty radical feminism going on within social media and even in the normal news cycle, most young girls and some male peers might think such a thing was "sexist?"

That's why I said in the very first post that in recent years, a lot of movement you guys have seem to take the shift back to where the conservative-oriental culture is.

But, is it a problem or is it a problem? Certainly, it's something that we should all be aware of and conscious of, right?

You tell me, living here long enough I think you Westerners are master of making something problem because you want it to be a problems. I have a perfect example for this but I'll save it for now

I do agree - I didn't need to be taught not to make unasked for and inappropriate sexual advances towards anyone. Why is that?

If I have to make a guess, your immidiate upbringing would have something to do with that.

....
Then you haven't played a lot of western RPG lately. I'll give you one developer to follow: Chris Avelone. You can compare his work in the last 10 years or so to say ... CDkproject and the Witcher, and you'll see what I mean. Here is Yennefer from Witcher 3: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tm2AmBKBCwk/maxresdefault.jpg

That's the "strong woman" meme. You know who that looks like?

The point is, if the narrative describe her as a beautiful woman, then her representation in the game should remain as such, which she did in the Witcher game. Samething for Triss. As you can see there is very little sexualize thing about their presentation, but you don't have to make them ugly to make a point. Like I said I haven't seen this trend appears among European developers yet (thanks god), Asian developers stay away from it with a 10-feet pole (because we're cool), it's only a trend among North America developers (as usual). Tbh, it's kinda hard to find a RPG games from North American developers that do not carry with it a healthy dose of political and social issues homade .

However, despite all of this, leaving children to be raised by their own unsupervised echo-chambers filled with complete B.S. and absolutely full of ignorance is... not the way we should raise our children. Imagine how many of these children react when after years of blathering about in their own social circles online, 24/7, with legions of their fellows being pleased by their radicalism or conformity, being constantly told how original and valuable their opinions are by "Likes" and "UpVotes," they step out into "the real world" and the first adult they interact with tells them they're an idiot and they should STFU because what they're saying is stupid...

Here is a small suggestion that I bet a lot of people in the modern western culture will find controversial: don't protect kids, treat them as adult.
- In Vietnam, the first graders are told they're not coming to school to have fun, but to study to not become a burden of the society.
- In Japan, the first graders are taught their country are poor, and it's down to their afford that the country may have hope for the future.
- In China, the first graders are taught they are the future of their family, whether it will end in prosperity or poverty depends on their success.
The same goes for South Korea, Singapore ...etc...

The idea is that there is no need to wait for "when they are ready". You know I actually went to a few years of high school here, together with what I see and heard, I think the culture here protect the kids the wrong way. I think kids in the US are taught they are born into the world as little treasures, the world is theirs to explore and they're special snowflakes who entitled to greatness unless someone else screw it up for them. For the most part, Asian kids are told their future is bleach the moment they are born, and they have to exert afford to change that fate.

[Usenko]

Here is a small suggestion that I bet a lot of people in the modern western culture will find controversial: don't protect kids, treat them as adult.
- In Vietnam, the first graders are told they're not coming to school to have fun, but to study to not become a burden of the society.
- In Japan, the first graders are taught their country are poor, and it's down to their afford that the country may have hope for the future.
- In China, the first graders are taught they are the future of their family, whether it will end in prosperity or poverty depends on their success.
The same goes for South Korea, Singapore ...etc...

The idea is that there is no need to wait for "when they are ready". You know I actually went to a few years of high school here, together with what I see and heard, I think the culture here protect the kids the wrong way. I think kids in the US are taught they are born into the world as little treasures, the world is theirs to explore and they're special snowflakes who entitled to greatness unless someone else screw it up for them. For the most part, Asian kids are told their future is bleach the moment they are born, and they have to exert afford to change that fate.

Like so many things, it's not that simple.

A lot of the reason for the difference in education between the East and the West is that the East tends to still rely mostly on tradition. The information kids learn is up to date and modern, but not necessarily the teaching methods. One big thing that has been learned over the last 50 years in educational psychology is that a lot of the approaches which seem logical - for example, putting a lot of emphasis on big exams - can be shown to have an ultimately detrimental effect long term.

Now, kids are pretty resilient, and many of them will learn whether or not the environment is an ideal place for learning. Also the teacher's training methods are far from the only factor. This does make it difficult to be certain how good the information that educational psychologists have gained is. Nevertheless, Western schools are more likely to incorporate current educational theory, for good or for ill. Teachers make the effort to make learning more enjoyable in the West because the theory suggests this is a better way of teaching, not so much because of different life philosophies.

[Mightysword]

Like so many things, it's not that simple.

Never said it is.

A lot of the reason for the difference in education between the East and the West is that the East tends to still rely mostly on tradition. The information kids learn is up to date and modern, but not necessarily the teaching methods.

I beg to differ, while I don't know how the education in Europe or Oceanic country work, I had received and experienced both Oriental and US education system. The Asian system is very rigid and systematically, but it's also because it's very polished. In my country, to become a K12 teacher, you must have a college degree in "teaching". By that I don't mean a few pedagogy workshop, some training and certification like it is done here in the US. There actually exist a College of "Education" that you go through 4 years of learning how to interact, approach, and solve problems with kids. Freedom academy here in the US for me just means "everyone do what you like and hope for the best" most of the time.

But note that for the most part, my current discussion with Mork is more on the ethical/moral side, rather then academia knowledge.

Now, kids are pretty resilient, and many of them will learn whether or not the environment is an ideal place for learning. Also the teacher's training methods are far from the only factor. This does make it difficult to be certain how good the information that educational psychologists have gained is. Nevertheless, Western schools are more likely to incorporate current educational theory, for good or for ill. Teachers make the effort to make learning more enjoyable in the West because the theory suggests this is a better way of teaching, not so much because of different life philosophies.

And here is the thing, there is a gap between theory and practical, just like there is a gap between idealism and reality. Scientific arguments no matter how sound, must be supported by empirical evident as well. Especially here in the US, scientific evidences a lot of time are merely used as a front for political correctness.

Also one thing I think you misunderstood what I said, which I think happens pretty common when people take the Eastern culture at literal value:

- When I said "they told us School is not supposed to be fun", it doesn't mean your k12 years wasn't fun. I had way more fun with my school in Asia then I did here in the US. And the school system always careful balance that while it does requires a lot, it doesn't overload the students, and activities are dots around the calendar. The idea is ... good lick telling kids they should not have fun, they'll find a way to entertain themselves regardless, and the adults watch on to make sure things doesn't go to far. It's about setting the expectation: you're not here to have fun but to study VS you're going to school to have fun! You should look at the tri-semester calendar for highschool in Japan, and while there is no doubt the students there face much higher pressure when school in sections, you will also see it rewards the students with much more meaningful activities throughout the year both in term of quality and quantities.

- You don't hear schools in Asia blabbering about "inclusiveness" in just about whatever activities we do, yet subtitly, I feel they are far more inclusive then the one in the US. A short description would be activities in Asian school can be viewed as a (compulsive) community effort, whether the one I see in the US are more often unique to (voluntary) small circles.

- You don't hear Asian schools promoting idea about making connection, networking skill and leadership skill ...etc... Yet the structure of the school already build to have those skill train since day one. Each years are organized into class, each with its presidents and representative, depending on the culture sometime each class is also divided into sub unit with a hierarchy structure ... and you do that since first grade. By highschool, you already see student councils that are given real executive power, sometime not even only within the school but for surrounding neighborhood as well.

Like I said, we do it piece by piece, consistently over long period, and we often we don't make a show out of it (by holding up a sight letting everyone know we're doing it). That's why it's called culture, and not a show of force.

Of course, like I said the system is a lot more rigid, but that should not be taken as it's not evolved over time, it's just done so in a control manner. Think about the word 'dictator': originally it's given to someone who are believed to be both competent and have the people best interest at heart, and as such he's free to do what is needed and other follow. These day that tittle is given to individual who usually don't give an arsehat about anyone else. The system in most progressive Asian culture can be viewed similarly to the first application of the word dictator, yes the system has overriding power in telling what gonna happens, but by no mean it's a stagnant system.

[Morkonan]

The difference is in my culture, "getting into trouble for saying it" is only a small part of the reason for a kid not saying it, but the main reason because he/she perceive the word as inappropriate to say. And where does that perception came from? Again, it came from consistently across the board. My upbringing taught me one thing: you can give all the lectures about how to behave to a kids, and they will never be as effective as simply setting examples in silent. Kids are not great listeners, but they are masters of imitation. A kid here may not say it where the adults can hear it, but as long as they see the adult themselves use the world and pass it around with laugh, they will most likely perceive it as a cool word that adult uses.

The significant thing is that I think more peers would actually speak out against "sexist" remarks, these days. Back in my day, saying a girl was "sexy" in a group of peers would likely result with a bunch of guys in agreement. I'm not so sure that is the case, today, but I think it's more likely than it used to be.

The thing is, though - Is it really legitimate? Some people want to be on the Cool Kids Bus and all the Cool Kids seem to be turning into Sketcher-wearing Feminists... Where did all the Birkenstocks go?

Again, that's why I said a lot of action and activism here are done pretty spontaneous, and I think it's more to benefit the ego of those who give the lessons rather of those who receive it, because it lacks a systematical consistency.

Agreed. It's a shifting wind, a meandering current, a riptide of almost-movements and halfhearted social revolution... "SAVE THE WHALES! But... Just this weekend, 'cause I have class on Monday. Oh, and I can't lie on the ground in passive protest 'cause that'd get my coat dirty. But, here's $5 for the poster board and markers for the sign! No, I don't want to carry one because it'd be hard to take selfies that way. Just Saturday, OK, because "Game of Thrones" is on Sunday. But, yeah, SAVE THE WHALES!"

That's why I said in the very first post that in recent years, a lot of movement you guys have seem to take the shift back to where the conservative-oriental culture is.

Ah.. But, it's not, is it? It's not really a shift towards "conservative-oriental culture" is it? After all, almost none of those people know what conservative-oriental culture is. When I was growing up, parents didn't turn towards their kids and say "OK, kids, we do things in this household according to conservative-oriental culture." When I watched "Happy Days" on television, The Fonz didn't say "Conservative-Oriental culture is cool! Ayyyyyyy!"

And, how many of the flip-flop dreadlocked skinnyjeaned neo-liberal Che Guevera t-shirt-wearing feminazi wannabe baristas are going to stand still for one minute while you call them anything remotely connected with... "conservative?" You'd be thrown out of Starbucks noodle-over-teapot for even suggesting such a thing!

You tell me, living here long enough I think you Westerners are master of making something problem because you want it to be a problems. I have a perfect example for this but I'll save it for now

My latest favorite:

Pic - The benefits of staying hydrated info-poster

...

"Hydrated"

ZOMGZ! I BETTER DRINK MOAR HYDRATED!



"OMG TEH EARF'S FINEST WATER! IT WILL SAVE MY LIFE AND MAKE ME PRODICTIVE LIEK TEH POSTER SAY!"

Meanwhile, the "bottled water manufacturers"... "Just keep hydrating. That's it. Drink more. Great! But, you better drink more, just to be sure. Yup. Drink some more, you look like you need to be hydrated. Great! Good job! You're doing swell! Stay hydrated. Drink more so you make sure you're hydrated. Go ahead, drink some. It's good for you to be hydrated. Being hydrated keeps you hydrated and you don't want to not be hydrated, do you? Of course not! Stay hydrated! MM, get that delicious and healthy hydration! That's right, drink it up. All of it! Good job, you're so great! You'll do great things if you just drink water! You're better than those other people who don't stay hydrated! Yes you are! You're better than them! They don't hydrate! Hydrating is important! Be one with being one with hydration! You're so awesome! That's it, take it all. Lift it up! Get hydrated! Take it all. All of it. Now, swallow!"

I do agree - I didn't need to be taught not to make unasked for and inappropriate sexual advances towards anyone. Why is that?

If I have to make a guess, your immidiate upbringing would have something to do with that.

Well, that depends... I was taught to be the meanest most terrible evil self-serving person you could think of. (I am not kidding.) That was my "upbringing." But, I decided that was wrong, so I decided not to be that person and to pity the ones trying to teach me to be that sort of person. Lucky for me, I found "religion" at an early age (7 or so). Or, religion found me, either way. So, if not for that, I would have grown up to be an axe murderer or a politician... But, considering that I was practically unsupervised except when receiving instructions on how to get "ahead in life" by various means, who was responsible for my upbringing? Me. And, since I chose a set of "principles" like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love they neighbor as thy self" I wouldn't have accepted a principle that allowed me to do such things.

There are all sorts of paths that lead to the same place.

The point is, if the narrative describe her as a beautiful woman, then her representation in the game should remain as such, which she did in the Witcher game. Samething for Triss. As you can see there is very little sexualize thing about their presentation, but you don't have to make them ugly to make a point.

Here, I can only interpret "ugly" as uniquely subjective and qualitative - She''s not "ugly."



^--- "Ugly"

Though, there might be "That One Guy" that thinks she's the epitome of physical beauty. But, then again, "That One Guy" gets off on just about anything, so who cares about his tastes?

... Asian developers stay away from it with a 10-feet pole (because we're cool), it's only a trend among North A00merica developers (as usual). Tbh, it's kinda hard to find a RPG games from North American developers that do not carry with it a healthy dose of political and social issues homade .

First of all, don't even try to bring "Asian developers" into a discussion about video game developers and anything remotely to do with any sort of "beauty", "feminine", or "sexy." Just... no.

Secondly - There is a longstanding tradition of teaching "values" in many mediums, including "games." Suitable games often include topical social statements, much like Morality Plays. But, it's worth noting that a great many of them merely cloak themselves in the "morals" they may claim to display. In one breath, they'll feature a moral about a strong noble female character and then, in the next scene, they'll enable the player to plough her through a wall in full 3D with dangly bits jangling as sexual positions are switched for better camera angles... Yeah, "Strong Noble Female Character Gets Shtuped Cutscene #3." Pubescent fans rejoice, telling their parents about all the "positive social and moral values" the game contains...

Here is a small suggestion that I bet a lot of people in the modern western culture will find controversial: don't protect kids, treat them as adult.

We've been there, done that. That's old news. During the Industrial Revolution, children were "treated as adults" in miniature. They were, in effect, just "tiny people" for the most part. It didn't turn out very well. In some cases, the concept was carried over into the mid 1900s, helped by the advent of "The Great Depression" which put unusual hardships on the family unit.

...The idea is that there is no need to wait for "when they are ready". You know I actually went to a few years of high school here, together with what I see and heard, I think the culture here protect the kids the wrong way. I think kids in the US are taught they are born into the world as little treasures, the world is theirs to explore and they're special snowflakes who entitled to greatness unless someone else screw it up for them. For the most part, Asian kids are told their future is bleach the moment they are born, and they have to exert afford to change that fate.

There is a median, isn't there? Isn't there a point where we can balance "caring for a child as if they were a child" and "teaching a child how to be a good adult when they grow up?" Isn't there? Can't a child feel as if they are loved by their family, understand that they will eventually be responsible for their own life, be cared for and feel "special" in the eyes of their loving and nurturing parents... all without growing up wacko nutjobs on the edge of suicide or mass-murder?

Life is not a lion pit. I know that's difficult to accept, but it's nonetheless true. In personal terms, it's about "values." What is most valuable? What is "worth the pursuit?" "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?"

[Usenko]

I beg to differ, while I don't know how the education in Europe or Oceanic country work, I had received and experienced both Oriental and US education system. The Asian system is very rigid and systematically, but it's also because it's very polished. In my country, to become a K12 teacher, you must have a college degree in "teaching". By that I don't mean a few pedagogy workshop, some training and certification like it is done here in the US. There actually exist a College of "Education" that you go through 4 years of learning how to interact, approach, and solve problems with kids. Freedom academy here in the US for me just means "everyone do what you like and hope for the best" most of the time.

Wait, what? Here in Australia teaching is mostly a 3-5 year Bachelors degree or a 1-2 year Masters course (i.e. on top of a specialist Bachelors degree). It is technically legal for schools to employ non-qualified teachers, but I'm not aware of any schools that actually do that (even one school I know run by a religious cult at least makes sure its teachers are qualified, even though they actually have an anti-intellectual slant!).

You're saying in the USA people can become teachers without a degree?

[Morkonan]

...In my country, to become a K12 teacher, you must have a college degree in "teaching". By that I don't mean a few pedagogy workshop, some training and certification like it is done here in the US. There actually exist a College of "Education" that you go through 4 years of learning how to interact, approach, and solve problems with kids. Freedom academy here in the US for me just means "everyone do what you like and hope for the best" most of the time.

In the U.S., it is necessary to have a Teacher's Certificate and those are usually obtained through formal education in an acreddited college "School of Education." "Teachers" do go to school in order to learn how to be educators. And, they must maintain their knowledge level by keeping up with the latest trends and theories and undergoing continuing training, every year.

HOWEVER, degreed individuals can, in some States, apply to be "Teachers." Why? It's generally due to the shortage of some teachers in certain fields and/or having to do with outreach and the broader expertise that certain professions have. (I came close to doing this, but I don't like getting up early in the morning. And, I don't like having halfwits tell me what I "need" to do in order to keep them happy while ignorance is proliferated... ) This is, however, NOT the normal path in the US to becoming a "Teacher." Most teachers go to school to earn a minor or major degree in education and a relative degree in their desired field of teaching. (AFAIK) But, some elementary school level teachers may only have an Education Degree. Regardless, all teachers that I know or are aware of have to be certified and undergo a period of what amounts to clinical trials under the supervision of another teacher. (Two teachers in my family, a number of teachers/profs as friends, etc..)

...Think about the word 'dictator': originally it's given to someone who are believed to be both competent and have the people best interest at heart, and as such he's free to do what is needed and other follow. These day that tittle is given to individual who usually don't give an arsehat about anyone else. The system in most progressive Asian culture can be viewed similarly to the first application of the word dictator, yes the system has overriding power in telling what gonna happens, but by no mean it's a stagnant system.

Well, I have a slight problem with that interpretation of the word "dictator." Sure, it simply denotes a government office that is outside of the bounds of the law/rules, able to enact whatever it wishes and force those things upon the governed, who have no recourse.

OK... But, that's exactly what Muammar Gaddafi was. That's what Saddam Hussein was. Even if we take away all of the Western Propoganda that was put out about these two leaders, they were pretty much complete and total asshats... They did disgusting things to people. And, both had all the schools and news agencies tell the populace how great they were and how they were only doing what was in the best interests of "The People" who flourished under their absolute Rule. And, in many ways, a good bit of the governed populace loved these guys. Seriously, they did. Why? Well, if you've got a starving man and you give him a bowl of mush, he's going to think you're the greatest guy on the planet, even if you're dining on roast duck every night. (DPRK's Kim Jung Il... Now there's a brainwashed population for ya.)

You can arrange things so that you can "tell" people how much they're benefiting from your rule without ever having to actually give the governed people any "benefits." That's crazy sounding, I know, but it can be made to work. (Hello, President Trump, what new crisis do we have that you're going to solve/invent for us, today. ) That's why independent news outlets and "The Free Press" and "Freedom of Speech" is entirely necessary - To prevent that from ever happening.

...You're saying in the USA people can become teachers without a degree?

Just to be sure to cover this, the answer is "usually" No. While the qualifications are decided upon by individual school districts in the "Public Education System," they almost all require a Teacher's Certificate and THAT can be obtained in two ways. Commonly, through graduating from a formal Education program at an accredited college/university and successfully completing any special requirements, including at least a quarter's worth of supervised teaching work in a school environment. However, in some public school districts or even "State Wide" a person with a Bachelor's or Master's degree in a subject (sometimes only in certain fields) from an accredited college or university can apply to become a "Teacher." They must still pass formal training and all that jazz before obtaining their Certificate that allows them to actually teach students in the Public School System. AFAIK, in the US Public School System and in schools given that designation, a "Teacher" must have a "Teacher's Certificate" or be immediately supervised by someone who does. And, teachers can also lose their certification... Though, that rarely ever happens no matter how inept they are. Once "Tenured" they have to make minimal efforts to retain their teaching status.

Teachers with a Master's Degree generally, AFAIK, are paid more and have the possibility for further advancement in some cases, especially in terms of administration. ie: Principals, Department Heads in larger schools, special program administrators, etc.

Private schools can hire any idiot they want and many do. Or, they just leave their doors open and anyone who wants to stand up for a few hours a day can start teaching... (AFAIK, that is.)

[Mightysword]

The thing is, though - Is it really legitimate? Some people want to be on the Cool Kids Bus and all the Cool Kids seem to be turning into Sketcher-wearing Feminists... Where did all the Birkenstocks go?

Idk, but even the cool kids in my culture wouldn't say that word, because it's not a 'cool' word to say, like you said I believe a lot of kids here use the word because they simply think it's cool ... and why do you think they have that impression?

Ah.. But, it's not, is it? It's not really a shift towards "conservative-oriental culture" is it? After all, almost none of those people know what conservative-oriental culture is. When I was growing up, parents didn't turn towards their kids and say "OK, kids, we do things in this household according to conservative-oriental culture." When I watched "Happy Days" on television, The Fonz didn't say "Conservative-Oriental culture is cool! Ayyyyyyy!"

Certainly, I doubt most of your activists on these issue actually look at some blue-print from an Eastern culture and have a eureka moment. Doesn't change the fact that it is shifting to that same value though. Another example is this: like I said all K12 in our culture must wear uniform, right. Of course, we were given the reason why:

- It is simple, it's time for school, put on that outfit. Antagonizing about "what should I wear today" is considered an unnecessary distraction for student.
- Students come from different background and wealth, but all that differences about social status is left at the school gate. In class, everyone look the same, and thus will study the same free of any materialistic prejudice.

Good reason, and tbh I doubt as students most of us thought much about it, it's a rule and we simply follow. 11 years of that and of course I would be surprise when I came to the US and don't have to wear a uniform. When I asked why, the answer was something like "oh here we value the freedom of expression, and dressing the way you want is a way for the students to express themselves and we don't want to limit that". Ok.

So ... this is not in the US, but I think a few weeks ago right before Chrismast I read an article (not sure on where) about a school in the UK decided to ban designer the coat to prevent "poverty-shaming". The first reaction was positive, enough that the school promised into similar action and increase the number of uniform days, of course it has also faced some backlast since then. So ... imagine here I am, seeing Western culture try to argue over something that has been part of my culture since ... before most people who are arguing about it, what do you think I was thinking.

First of all, don't even try to bring "Asian developers" into a discussion about video game developers and anything remotely to do with any sort of "beauty", "feminine", or "sexy." Just... no.

I think I know what you mean, or maybe I don't. Asian games always feature glamours figure because:

- We don't see a point of faking fantasy.
- The consummate are expected to know the line between fantasy and reality.

Take me as an example, as shown above I prefer having glamorous figures in my game, but in real life I'm also ingrained to value inner beauty over physical beauty. There is no conflict for me there, thus I don't see the point in creating a ugly fantasy to make a point.

Secondly - There is a longstanding tradition of teaching "values" in many mediums, including "games." Suitable games often include topical social statements, much like Morality Plays.

True, but usually not the "in your face" style that US developers seem to do. Other culture does this very subtly, and usually it's done on a macro level, it usually tries to send a message on the "value" instead of specify the issue. Some of the games from North American developer (and against, I'm emphasizing this is currently a problem unique to this location) make me feel like "oh hey, I just read something like this on CNN!".

There is a median, isn't there? Isn't there a point where we can balance "caring for a child as if they were a child" and "teaching a child how to be a good adult when they grow up?" Isn't there? Can't a child feel as if they are loved by their family, understand that they will eventually be responsible for their own life, be cared for and feel "special" in the eyes of their loving and nurturing parents...

Sure, so the question is how much you think our culture (as in the US's culture, since I'm a citizen too) is doing to achieve that median? Believe it or not, I think it is the Eastern culture that actually closer to that median than the Western culture, like my answer to Usenko above, it simply doesn't sound like that because Eastern culture do it in a much subtle way instead of of trumpeting it left and right. Here, I'll give you another small example:

- Despite all the harsh expectation, Asian kids are shifted to their adulthood in a much more gradual way:
+ Parents are expected to cover college expense so the teenage can focus on their study.
+ Family responsibility are shifted in phase. You are expected to take over tiny responsibility gradually, and by that I don't mean just paying the bill. Making decision, taking role in ceremony, and of course financial burden.
+ Only when you have a career, and settle down with a family, that's when the parents considered their job is done.

- Whether from my perception, it seems it's pretty normal for parents here to consider when the kid turn 18 they need to become independents. Many parents I came across (and students giving their story) seem to point out that it's normal for when you become a college students, you're an adult and have to be in charge of your life. And you know ... it's not even cultural, it's the law, it's illegal to reveal college student performance to their parents in here in the US. I'm not say it's something always happen, but it's definitely be considered normal here in the US culture, but in an Asian culture that would considered to be irresponsible, and that the parents have not done enough for their children future.

all without growing up wacko nutjobs on the edge of suicide or mass-murder?

Of course, and to that note here is some funny fact for you. According to data from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, here is the latest homicide rate per region:

Americas 16.3
Africa 12.5
Europe 3.0
Oceania 3.0
Asia 2.9

One more things that make the number even more impressive is that I can argue the relative low population from Europe and Oceania can certainly help them in this case, the Asia bloc contain the largest contingent of population of all including some of the most volatile area, yet it manages to stay at the bottom.

See who at the top and who at the bottom? Of course, you can argue that America region is skewl by the violence in South America, but note that Asia's data also contain unstable reason like South Asia and the middle East. So let's take a look further at some particular countries:

United State: 5.35
Japan: 0.28
China: 0.62
South Korea: 0.70
Singapore: 0.32
Vietnam: 1.52

Do you know why I listed those Asian countries in particular? Because in the region, these are known as culture that put the most pressure on their youth, as well as having the most draconian discipline system in education institutions ... yet they don't seem to murder people as much

[Mightysword]

Wait, what? Here in Australia teaching is mostly a 3-5 year Bachelors degree or a 1-2 year Masters course (i.e. on top of a specialist Bachelors degree). It is technically legal for schools to employ non-qualified teachers, but I'm not aware of any schools that actually do that (even one school I know run by a religious cult at least makes sure its teachers are qualified, even though they actually have an anti-intellectual slant!).

You're saying in the USA people can become teachers without a degree?

No, they do need to have a degree in a field. What I am saying is in my culture, becoming a teacher is a "career" choice that must be made early, and not a fall back or plan B option. Just like someone who want to become a doctor will go to Med school after highschool, someone who want to become a teacher must go to the college of education. It's a 4 years process, and you'll receive a bachelor degree that will qualify you for teaching, and most school will put you through a 2 years trainee period fresh out of college. Like I said, you do need to have a certification to teach here in the US, but I have the impression it's nowhere a process as rigorous as the one in Asia. What usually happens is teacher have a degree (BS/BA or MS/MA) in a field, and then obtain a certification later to teach. Basically, it's pedigree before pedagogy. In fact, no teachers I know actually have an education decree as their first, it's just something they picked up later when they decided to start teaching. I actually went through one program myself, and as far as my experience go it only teaches you the technically how to cover your chosen field. It does not teach you the interpersonal skill on how to handle students on academy unrelated matter. You can pick up those skill too, but usually through workplace training, or getting another decree in communication or something. Of course, that is if you assume everyone gonna go and try to pick up all the relevant skill like collecting eggs on thanksgiving days.

A degree in education in Asia though, is usually a all in one package deal.

P.S: In fact, I think this issue has only become a soul searching within the US education system only recently. People just seems to realize NOW that we have a lot of smart specialists without teaching skill as teachers. The push for pedagogy in parallel or even above pedigree is definitely a very recent thing.

[Morkonan]

... and why do you think they have that impression?

The "Forbidden" is always "cool" to some pubescents.

(Were there things that were "cool" like that in your own Asian culture? Things that were controversial or forbidden that adolescents giggled about or tried to emulate?)

I used the word "pubescents" because those are the only ones that could meaningfully use that word. And they don't have any furniture with corners in their room because they've rubbed them all off... It's a very crazy time, physiologically speaking, and not much would surprise me there.

Certainly, I doubt most of your activists on these issue actually look at some blue-print from an Eastern culture and have a eureka moment. Doesn't change the fact that it is shifting to that same value though.

And, that's the whole point - It's not specific to Asian culture. Or, did you think it was? Could you imagine conditions existing that would promote that sort of "educational culture?" Imagine Science-Fiction environments, if you need to. They're wonderful for ferreting out these sorts of socio-economic-political-cultural conditions that could promote things that some people might think are "extreme" behaviors or attitudes.

Wiki: Right of Passage

In some cultures, this is a supreme event in the life of a young person. In some cultures, it's a fairly brutal trial that they train for all their young lives until the moment they must attempt it.

Is the pressure to succeed in some particularly archaic and tribal "Rights of Passage" any different than the stress that may be placed on some students in some cultures? I'm not saying that this applies just to Asian cultures, but to all human cultures where there is an extreme emphasis on success, achievement, or passing some culturally significant point. What is the impact on those young people in such cultural systems?

Aside from the expected "economic impact" let's look at the psychological effects that are achieved with such cultural imperatives: Wiki: Right of Passage Psychological Effects (Not sure if the link will parse well.)

By perpetuating these cultural imperatives, the society is promoting these psychological and social effects, isn't it? And, where a society promotes such effects, there must be a reason that they are valued. But, how long can a stable society exist if some of the qualities they wish to promote are also inevitably destructive should certain likely conditions occur?

If a tribe of people promote an increasing emphasis on group identity and someone builds a road to their village that is now traveled by a bunch of strangers, how long will those strangers remain in possession of their own heads? What will win? Will the cultural isolation promoted by ever-increasing group identity win out over the forced introduction of "The People From Over the Hill" or will globalism and cultural acceptance win?

..11 years of that and of course I would be surprise when I came to the US and don't have to wear a uniform. When I asked why, the answer was something like "oh here we value the freedom of expression, and dressing the way you want is a way for the students to express themselves and we don't want to limit that". Ok.

And, some districts in the US require School Uniforms for the same reasons you mentioned and some don't require them for the same reasons you mentioned... We didn't have any "uniforms" when I was in school except for Physical Education Uniforms, which was a pair of shorts and a t-shirt with the school's logo on it. (To keep our other clothes from getting dirty during P.E. and, one assumes, to keep kids fully and adequately clothed. If left up to their own devices, who knows what some kids would have worn during exercise class and sports instruction?

.. before most people who are arguing about it, what do you think I was thinking.

For myself, I think there might have been some desire to promote "conformity" in your previous (Being an American, AFAIK, you're one of "us" whether you like it or not! ) society rather than certain other values that were put forth. Uniforms of various types have long been used as extra reminders and inducements for "conformity." It's a very ancient tradition in human culture, especially in striated cultures where one's social or legal standing was mandated by the society. (Can't where purple, have to wear a pin, can't carry any weapon, must wear a collar, allowed to wear a full toga, allowed to wear silly hats etc...)

Take me as an example, as shown above I prefer having glamorous figures in my game, but in real life I'm also ingrained to value inner beauty over physical beauty. There is no conflict for me there, thus I don't see the point in creating a ugly fantasy to make a point.

Uh... OK. Let's just say that some "Asian games" go waaaay further than that. And, in fact, some "Asian games" approach some subjects a bit too... freely. Some would, apparently, think that putting kitten ears and a tail on a character that looks like a prepubescent girl is sufficient evidence necessary to avoid a prison sentence, even in their own culture. And... let's just avoid the discussion, 'cause eventually someone is going to ask for an example and then we're all doomed as the cancer spreads.

I do remember some games of Asian origin that had "ugly" characters in them. Fight games, mostly, though.

But, that does bring up the subject of "Heroic Characters." There is, of course, an ideal of "Heroic Figure" and it's generally pretty solid - Smaller head, broader shoulders, narrow waist, longer legs, and, where secondary sex characteristics are dominant, more prominence of those characteristics. More well-defined muscles, larger pectorals for men, larger boobies for women, etc, etc... Think of "Super Hero" proportions in comic books for a good example of likely "Heroic Proportions." These are not constant, though, through all societies/cultures, it seems. For instance, there appears to be a very strong influence in some Asian male "Heroes" to emphasize much more feminine proportions. Childlike proportions, as well, with larger heads, bigger eyes or slightly more separation between the eyes, smaller lower faces/jaws, etc, also make their way into Asian Heroic Ideals. (Note: This is not the same as the "Ideal Proportion" when it comes down to human physiology and phenotypes. AFAIK, those are fairly consistent across cultures/societies with little variance.)

PS - IMO, "Sex Selection" could play something of an evolutionarily reinforced role, here. There could be sex-selection preferences that could influence such heroic and ideal human form proportion interpretations if there is any evolutionarily reinforced component to them. I assume the latter has to exist, therefore the former is necessarily applicable.

... Some of the games from North American developer (and against, I'm emphasizing this is currently a problem unique to this location) make me feel like "oh hey, I just read something like this on CNN!".

Some of that may just be due to topical subjects that can be advanced in marketing or can be used for player involvement, satisfaction, and "relevance" to a player's experience, making it a bit easier for them to find extra value in a game. I don't think many AAA games are ever seriously trying to address any relevant social issues purely for the purpose of attempting to put forth some interpretations of "good moral judgement." There isn't much money to be made, there, according to the Grand Theft Auto franchise. The days of "Everything I ever needed to know I learned from "Star Trek"" are over. (The original series taught me so much "good" stuff.)

Sure, so the question is how much you think our culture (as in the US's culture, since I'm a citizen too) is doing to achieve that median? Believe it or not, I think it is the Eastern culture that actually closer to that median than the Western culture, like my answer to Usenko above, it simply doesn't sound like that because Eastern culture do it in a much subtle way instead of of trumpeting it left and right. Here, I'll give you another small example:

But, that we can cherry-pick whatever "good" qualities we find in a society's culture doesn't mean that we can then apply them to another. And, some of them might not even be relevant. Some of them may also reflect conflicting "values" too, right?

Is Asian culture better at caring for their children than, let's say, US Western Culture?

"Asian" singled out, click on the Bar Chart for all totals

Some are better, some are not. Some are fairly equal, like China. But, then again, the Chinese government has waged an extensive campaign against certain practices like drowning babies, which used to be "a thing" if they weren't born with external plumbing (Male). Reporting may also be a bit lacking, considering the wide variances of economic development and suitable infrastructure in China. And, if China's Five Year Plan ever goes pear-shaped, the last agency to know about it is going to be some silly UN agency that relies on self-reporting from the Chinese government... "We're all doing fine, here. How are you?" <rampant screaming and explosions in the background, cue Wookie roar>

But, what about the "culture" that children are expected to "grow into?" Keeping in mind that the "Rights of Passage" mentioned above is to demonstrate cultural/social traditions that are used to reinforce certain desired things, how does how a child is educated prepare them for the society they are expected to enter?

You mentioned earlier the emphasis on things like "networking" and other social contacts in US schools. For myself, while this was discussed, it wasn't really a topic in my gradeschool or college curriculum other than to present its advantages for those seeking employment. (It was a serious study in Sociology and studies that focused on how people sought and gained employment, though. It just wasn't "personalized" very much.)

Back in college/university, it was determined at the time that the primary means that people used to obtain a job that provided them a working wage was simply "personal contacts" or, in other words, "word of mouth." People were informed or introduced to employment opportunities by people they personally knew in some way. Later, as in as I studied the subject, there was a growing interest in how this expanded to include social and professional organizations. People broadened their contacts with others to afford them better employment opportunities.

These days... if you're not on Linkedin, you aren't getting hired by anyone. And, "you" are no longer what is presented at an interview for a job, but what is on your Linkedin page or resume no matter how awesome of a person you are actually "in person." Don't even think you'll get a good job where you live, right now, either, since you'll probably have to travel to where the good jobs are.

All of the above is fairly easy to achieve, though, in the US compared to some other countries isn't it? And, if expanding one''s "Network" is much easier and if people still find the best jobs by "word of mouth" it's much easier for qualified people to compete for such jobs, right? Promoting those ideas might actually be much more of a benefit to students in the US than it might be in other markets.

Of course, and to that note here is some funny fact for you. According to data from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, here is the latest homicide rate per region:
....
Do you know why I listed those Asian countries in particular? Because in the region, these are known as culture that put the most pressure on their youth, as well as having the most draconian discipline system in education institutions ... yet they don't seem to murder people as much

I didn't mean to start that particular discussion. It should be obvious that one can't easily draw conclusions of "causality" here, especially if we're just talking about cultural differences in raising and educating children.

My point was that can't we come upon a system that reinforces what we think is "good to reinforce" that doesn't have a great possibility of producing broken people but still produces and encourages adults that are exceptionally capable human beings?

IMO, to get down to it, there's a growing discrepancy, in my opinion, between the evolution of the "family unit" and even the responsibilities of those within that unit (as you suggest) and what could generally be considered to be productive and beneficial for the society in question - The U.S. and some similar societies. I think we can come to an agreement on the basics necessary to promote a stable society with the values that we profess to hold. I just don't see a lot of evidence of people pursuing that agenda these days.

There's a heck of a lot of very demanding "static" in our society on the subject of what's best for "us." That static is actively promoted and valued by, IMO, agents (people or groups of people) that don't give a crap about our society or our ever-changing culture. In many cases, they're actively benefiting by promoting ideals that are in opposition to our culture's current values and exploiting the results.

For a very long time on this forum, I've occasionally made the claim that "I could get a house-cat elected as President of the United States." Well... there ya go. Though I had nothing at all to do with it, we now have one and it's apparently sitting on Trump's head.

[Usenko]

Wait, what? Here in Australia teaching is mostly a 3-5 year Bachelors degree or a 1-2 year Masters course (i.e. on top of a specialist Bachelors degree). It is technically legal for schools to employ non-qualified teachers, but I'm not aware of any schools that actually do that (even one school I know run by a religious cult at least makes sure its teachers are qualified, even though they actually have an anti-intellectual slant!).

You're saying in the USA people can become teachers without a degree?

No, they do need to have a degree in a field. What I am saying is in my culture, becoming a teacher is a "career" choice that must be made early, and not a fall back or plan B option. Just like someone who want to become a doctor will go to Med school after highschool, someone who want to become a teacher must go to the college of education. It's a 4 years process, and you'll receive a bachelor degree that will qualify you for teaching, and most school will put you through a 2 years trainee period fresh out of college. Like I said, you do need to have a certification to teach here in the US, but I have the impression it's nowhere a process as rigorous as the one in Asia. What usually happens is teacher have a degree (BS/BA or MS/MA) in a field, and then obtain a certification later to teach. Basically, it's pedigree before pedagogy. In fact, no teachers I know actually have an education decree as their first, it's just something they picked up later when they decided to start teaching. I actually went through one program myself, and as far as my experience go it only teaches you the technically how to cover your chosen field. It does not teach you the interpersonal skill on how to handle students on academy unrelated matter. You can pick up those skill too, but usually through workplace training, or getting another decree in communication or something. Of course, that is if you assume everyone gonna go and try to pick up all the relevant skill like collecting eggs on thanksgiving days.

A degree in education in Asia though, is usually a all in one package deal.

P.S: In fact, I think this issue has only become a soul searching within the US education system only recently. People just seems to realize NOW that we have a lot of smart specialists without teaching skill as teachers. The push for pedagogy in parallel or even above pedigree is definitely a very recent thing.

I find that quite astounding. One tends to assume that much that you'd experience in the USA would be pretty similar to Australia, but this is poles apart from my experience.

Even if you have a relevant degree in a field, in Australia you won't become a teacher unless you have done a teaching degree as well. This can be done as a one year course if you already have a bachelors (full time), but it is a serious study, and not undertaken as a "plan B". If you are not fully trained in pedagogy you will not get a job as a teacher in Australia (although to be fair, I don't think anyone would try it).

In Australia many teachers quit by about 2 years into their career, so the teacher education process aims to try to improve the odds. If you survive your first 5 years, you're probably good to go for the long haul.

Whilst it is possible to do a Masters to convert from another degree[1], this is not the usual approach. Most teachers start with the 4 year Bachelor of Education course.

Of course, and to that note here is some funny fact for you. According to data from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, here is the latest homicide rate per region:

Americas 16.3
Africa 12.5
Europe 3.0
Oceania 3.0
Asia 2.9

One more things that make the number even more impressive is that I can argue the relative low population from Europe and Oceania can certainly help them in this case, the Asia bloc contain the largest contingent of population of all including some of the most volatile area, yet it manages to stay at the bottom.

See who at the top and who at the bottom? Of course, you can argue that America region is skewl by the violence in South America, but note that Asia's data also contain unstable reason like South Asia and the middle East. So let's take a look further at some particular countries:

United State: 5.35
Japan: 0.28
China: 0.62
South Korea: 0.70
Singapore: 0.32
Vietnam: 1.52

Do you know why I listed those Asian countries in particular? Because in the region, these are known as culture that put the most pressure on their youth, as well as having the most draconian discipline system in education institutions ... yet they don't seem to murder people as much

I'm afraid Australia wrecks those neat stats for you (0.94). Granted we're a little higher than Asia (but our suicide rate is far lower), but don't put us with those American nutjobs!

Incidentally, Oceania is a little bit of an artificial region. Think of it as a sort of "Misc" drawer. People who live in it do not identify themselves that way, because the cultural differences between Australia/New Zealand and the Pacific Islands are immense - chalk and cheese. Papua New Guinea and Timor L'Este tend to raise the homicide figures for the region. Unfortunately, in Australia homicides are also concentrated in the Aboriginal community.

[1] I started doing a Bachelor of Science, and wound up with a Bachelor of Arts in History, with a diploma of Education - that was the old way of doing things. They changed the system as I was completing university. Nowadays the diploma of education (itself quite a rigorous course involving pedagogy and educational psychology) has been replaced with the Masters of Education, so if you already have a bachelors you need to trade up to become a teacher.

[pjknibbs]

Even if you have a relevant degree in a field, in Australia you won't become a teacher unless you have done a teaching degree as well. This can be done as a one year course if you already have a bachelors (full time), but it is a serious study, and not undertaken as a "plan B". If you are not fully trained in pedagogy you will not get a job as a teacher in Australia (although to be fair, I don't think anyone would try it).

There's a similar process in England and Wales--you have to have a Bachelor's degree and also sufficient additional training to achieve QTS (Qualified Teacher Status). This can be done on the job, but a lot of teachers opt for a one-year PGCE (Postgraduate Certificate of Education) course that automatically grants them QTS when finished. (The process in Scotland is a little different, but I'm not sure entirely how).

Oddly, it used to be the case that you could teach in a public school (e.g. what any sensible country would call "private" schools, ones where the parents pay a fee to put their children through) without QTS--you only needed that to teach in a state school. I have no idea if that still applies today.