Originally, people are unequal. The physical structure of men and women is different, and the roles that are suitable for them are also different.

People who have less experience as humans may start their life game as women, and the game settings may start at "easy." Surprisingly, there are many people who become housewives, have a happy family, and pass away peacefully.

And, there may be cases where someone is born as a woman because they want to do something, and there may be cases where someone is born as a man because they want to do something.

There are jobs that are suitable for men, and there are jobs that are suitable for women.

The energy levels between men and women are completely different, aren't they? The difference in energy directly leads to differences in work, and if you do a job that is not suitable for you, you become unqualified. This can manifest as a sense of discomfort.

If we strictly apply the concept of gender equality, which originated in the West, it would mean that women should also do physical labor, and the burden on women should be 50%, the obligations of women should be 50%, and it would be strange for women to be housewives, and it would mean that women don't need to be helped.

However, as I have said repeatedly, in cases where the life game is set at an easy level, a woman may be born into a relatively wealthy family, and she may not have much financial difficulty, but she may be born and live a normal life and pass away.

However, when the story becomes that women must work because of gender equality, the easy settings disappear, and if someone with little human experience suddenly starts at a normal difficulty level, it may be too difficult and they may get stuck.

There are also cases where someone is born as a man with little life experience, and the family may be wealthy, but that is not always the case, but it is generally considered.

However, in cases where someone is born without much thought, there are times when they are born and then think, "Ah, I made a mistake."

In any case, there are differences in the difficulty of life, and there are those who help and those who are helped.

For example, in terms of finances, men may help women, but in terms of childcare and housework, women may help men. That is also a form of division of labor, but nowadays, it is said that everything is 50% for both men and women, but housewives may become more skilled, and above all, they may feel more comfortable. I don't understand why they insist on dividing everything 50% and making people do things they are not good at. If that's the case, it would be better not to get married in the first place.

It seems to me that this is not a matter of differences between men and women, but rather a fundamental attitude of not helping others, even family members.

Because, while it appears to be about gender equality, in reality, it is equivalent to saying, "I will not help others." Various things are said in the context of gender equality, such as independence and dignity, but those are not about dividing work or roles by 50%. Rather, independence and dignity can be achieved even if one is a homemaker. I think it is necessary to understand why the issue of gender equality has become a matter of dividing roles by 50%.

Ultimately, the foundation of Western thought is "only thinking about oneself," and that is why the issue of gender equality exists.

To me, it seems like people are asking, "What is wrong with it being relatively easy to be born a woman?"

While it may be difficult for women who cannot get married, the same can be said for men. I think it is better not to juxtapose poverty and gender equality.

Whether one is born a man or a woman, one tends to make plans and decide what kind of life to live before being born. However, for beginners, they may decide arbitrarily or without thinking, and then fail and become impoverished. This is due to the reasons of being a beginner or being careless, so there is nothing we can do about it.

Alternatively, there may be cases where one experiences poverty as part of a plan, but that seems to be relatively rare. Or, there may be people who experience poverty because they are told that it is a learning experience, even if they are not consciously aware of it.

In any case, the issue of poverty among women that is currently being discussed in the context of gender equality cannot be solved by gender equality. Rather, it is a matter of inequality as human beings, regardless of gender. Because experiences and roles are different, it is not a matter of gender equality and self-reliance to aim for 50%. Instead, the problem of this world will not be solved unless we reach a point where the strong help the weak.

The idea that everyone should be an independent entity and that men and women should be equal leads to the current concept of 50% burden in gender equality. However, there are people who receive without contributing much. People with a lot should continue to give. In simple terms, it is a matter of the strong helping the weak, and there will be issues related to money. Of course, if a role is suitable for women, women should help men.

Since people are inherently unequal, I think it's better not to jump into things like achieving 50% equality between men and women.