• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Konami sued for sexual discrimination

The Faceless Master said:
so, men don't have to choose between their job and their child?
Click to expand...

Case in point, many of the people responding think that she should quit her travel job to stay with her kids, but not a single one had thought that the guy should give up his. It's ingrained to the point where it's unthinkable. Every woman who has children will have to deal with the impacts it has on her in terms of time off of work and school which has a huge effect on future opportunity, virtually no men will because they can continue working, being productive and staying competitive for promotion. Both of them make the child but only one is penalized.
 
Somnid said:
Case in point, many of the people responding think that she should quit her travel job to stay with her kids, but not a single one had thought that the guy should give up his. It's ingrained to the point where it's unthinkable. Every woman who has children will have to deal with the impacts it has on her in terms of time off of work and school which has a huge effect on future opportunity, virtually no men will because they can continue working, being productive and staying competitive for promotion. Both of them make the child but only one is penalized.
Click to expand...
no, actually, the majority of people think it's a bunch of horseshit that she got a demotion and 200k yen pay cut, count the replies, it's overwhelming.
 
RevenantKioku said:
Wait, how many months did this go on before she sued? If she is suing for 33 million yen in lost wages then she put up with it for quite some time. Something smells fishy to me.
Or - I'm ignorant, the more likely case!
Click to expand...
She isn't suing for lost wages only. She's suing because she was discriminated against and since it's clear she won't get her job back, she is suing for enough to take care of herself for a while.

If the Sankei report is accurate, she has been discriminated against, but this being Japan, I imagine it might not be as easy for her to win the case as it should be.
 
Anyone arguing against her just is sounding silly to me. It isn't a case of having her cake and eating it too it is a case of she wanted to procreate (a natural and necessary action in human society) and keep her job.

I also don't understand people arguing for paternity leave. Do you honestly think when the mother is at home with her child she is just laying around watching Soap Operas and taking naps? I mean, seriously? I'd much prefer to goto work and get away from that than have to sit at home dealing with a crying child.
 
Jonnyram said:
She isn't suing for lost wages only. She's suing because she was discriminated against and since it's clear she won't get her job back, she is suing for enough to take care of herself for a while.

If the Sankei report is accurate, she has been discriminated against, but this being Japan, I imagine it might not be as easy for her to win the case as it should be.
Click to expand...
Okay. When worded that way it just sounds like she went on with it for a long time unhappily until "Hey, wait, I can sue!"
 
A Black Falcon said:
And that attitude is exactly what lawsuits like this are trying to fight, and why actually doing it is so important... if nobody tries to change this stuff, it'll never be different.

So yeah, if that summary is accurate, hopefully she wins... but given the state of women's rights in Japan, I don't think I'd bet on it. Hopefully it will though.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I mean don't get me wrong I'm all for having an open mind with different cultures in terms of home-life, school-life, and work-life.

I'm sorry but bullshit is bullshit. There is no reason why someone who is just as capable as everyone else should be so short stringed.


WhiteAce said:
and i just know this thread is going to have some of the most dumb things ever spouted on the internet, i can already see a couple of gems already.
Click to expand...

You mean all of those people who are secretly furious at all of those insane bitchy feminists (note not all just the one's that take it too far) and treat every topic about women rights as if it was a situation that mirrored those extreme issues they present? Or those who have received very little (if any) discrimination in their lives and therefore assume that the entire country (as well as all other modernized countries) have very little discrimination in them therefore nearly all of those complaining are just whiners? Yeah they'll mess up this thread like they always do with these type of topics.

And yeah your previous post before was true as well. Japanese salaries are ridiculously low as it is. That pay cut must have been huge.
 
I've seen plenty of US companies - my own included - that give "bonding leave" to the father of a new child. For me, I think it's two weeks paid.
 
RevenantKioku said:
Okay. When worded that way it just sounds like she went on with it for a long time unhappily until "Hey, wait, I can sue!"
Click to expand...
She came back from her maternity leave in April this year. It doesn't sound like a long time to me.
 
The Faceless Master said:
no, actually, the majority of people think it's a bunch of horseshit that she got a demotion and 200k yen pay cut, count the replies, it's overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Fine, but that's not the issue. In fact you can be disgusted with it and yet still make that assumption. It's hardly special treatment to gain such things, especially considering how shitty everything else might be for a woman.

For those figuring that pay-cut make sure that you remember as a woman she will make less too.
 
Jonnyram said:
She came back from her maternity leave in April this year. It doesn't sound like a long time to me.
Click to expand...
Guess reading the linked article helps!
 
Somnid said:
Case in point, many of the people responding think that she should quit her travel job to stay with her kids, but not a single one had thought that the guy should give up his. It's ingrained to the point where it's unthinkable. Every woman who has children will have to deal with the impacts it has on her in terms of time off of work and school which has a huge effect on future opportunity, virtually no men will because they can continue working, being productive and staying competitive for promotion. Both of them make the child but only one is penalized.
Click to expand...

Point out these many people.
 
Naked Snake said:
I like the Russian version of the saying, it translated to: "you want to eat the fish and eat the cock?"
Click to expand...


"sit on the cock" would be a proper translation. Which would still not make any sense because of wordplay involved.
 
I think Konami deserves to lose solely for the fact that they explicitly say they did it because she had a child. I mean if you're gonna demote someone for maternity leave, you should at least cite one of the many legal reasons you have for doing it.
 
Tenkai Star said:
Sweden says hi!
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about it, and I've finally come to the conclusion that Sweden doesn't actually exist. It's just this made up paradise of equal rights and responsible effective socialism that makes the rest of the world feel like shit and try to improve. It's like Mom's telling their kids that the boogie man will get them if they don't fucking go to sleep.
 
Tenks said:
I also don't understand people arguing for paternity leave. Do you honestly think when the mother is at home with her child she is just laying around watching Soap Operas and taking naps? I mean, seriously? I'd much prefer to goto work and get away from that than have to sit at home dealing with a crying child.
Click to expand...
WTF? The point of paternity leave is the same as maternity leave, enabling a primary care giver to raise a child. Just because you want to not see your kid for the first year does not mean every father feels that way. When (if :D) I have kids, you had better be damn sure I'm going to be taking some paternity leave.
 
I hope this woman puts enough pressure on them so that Konami settles the case. I hope MGS4 trophies are part of the settlement. I need to contact this lady to set this up!
 
Boo, Konami. Things like this are what is so wrong with the Japanese workplace and contribute to Japan having the least happy population of well-off nations on the planet.
 
I do feel for her. To me this smells like typical Japanese paternalism. They did this to her 'for her own good' and probably without proper consultation.

That said, the Games Biz is a ridonkulously fast moving business. I've heard of people losing positions they've worked years to attain simply for falling sick for a few months and being promoted sideways into support roles.

The money issue depends on whether this 200,000 yen a month is specifically tied to the travelling aspect of the job (sort of like Flight Pay in the US Airforce - if you move out of a flying job, you lose that extra money) or simply reflects a reduction in seniority of her new role.

Either way I smell a settlement out of court.
 
fanboi said:
In Sweden you get 480 days the at home for the child (240 days on each parent, but you can give the other parents days except for 60 days that you only can use).

The pay is 80% of the salary each month, with a maximum of something like 100$ each day.
You also 120$ each month as support money.

So yeah, it's quite good to become a parent in Sweden.
Click to expand...
Wow, sounds like Sweden has the right idea.
 
The fuck is wrong with some of you guys. Friendly reminder: men can't get pregnant and give birth. Think about that for a minute.
 
Impossible. I can't imagine these people being sexist or practicing any sexual discrimination.

LaughingOctopus2.jpg
 
Somnid said:
She has to choose between her job and her child, you just have to knock up your wife and make her choose while you continue to do whatever you want to.
Click to expand...
This is quite the sexist statement.

Why do you automatically assume it's HER who has to choose? Even worse, why do you think a man can make his wife make the choice.

Jesus.
 
2000 usd less? What was her original monthly wages then?

i earn even less then the amount she's losing every month so she must be very special to earn so much money.
 
I thought this would be about how in MGO, at first, you could only create a male character and if you wanted to create a female one you had to wait for them to be available and then purchase a new slot.
 
In defense of Konami, as a privately owned and operated entity they have every right to dock her pay for the stated reasons. In the end this was in no way discrimination of any kind.
 
If they were smart, they could've just said that they eliminated her position, created the exact same one under a different name (with slightly different responsibilties), and THEN demoted her. That way, she's bumped down, they still have the same position, and her case would be harder. Yes, I work in a corporate environment.
 
Considering having a child is a choice, women should probably factor in inevitable career changes to their decision.
 
nyong said:
Considering having a child is a choice, women should probably factor in inevitable career changes to their decision.
Click to expand...

I believe the whole point is that if it's not a factor for a man and his career, it shouldn't be a factor for a woman and her career.
 
Andrew2 said:
In defense of Konami, as a privately owned and operated entity they have every right to dock her pay for the stated reasons. In the end this was in no way discrimination of any kind.
Click to expand...

This. How does this make any sense.

At the end of the day it's about dollars and cents. If having a child downgrades her productivity to the company, her wages will reflect that. It's the same for any male or female employee falling sick, having extra commitments at home because of a sick loved one etc.
 
Spasm said:
This is quite the sexist statement.

Why do you automatically assume it's HER who has to choose? Even worse, why do you think a man can make his wife make the choice.

Jesus.
Click to expand...

Because this is typically how it always works? The woman is forced to do it regardless, the man is not. You can be as kind as you want about her needs or whatever but she is still going to suffer a setback when the guy doesn't. This a social problem independent of how awesomely you treat your spouse, you could be the best husband/father on earth and spend lots of time at home, in fact if you were you'd probably be on the daddy track and hurting for the same reasons.
 
gantz85 said:
This. How does this make any sense.

At the end of the day it's about dollars and cents. If having a child downgrades her productivity to the company, her wages will reflect that. It's the same for any male or female employee falling sick, having extra commitments at home because of a sick loved one etc.
Click to expand...
So when anyone has a kid they should be demoted and paid less?
 
I don't see this as discrimination at all. If anything they were trying to help by moving her to a position where she wouldn't have to travel alot (something a new mother wouldn't want to do). Regardless, a ¥200,000/mth pay cut is significant and they should have approached her first before making any decisions.
 
ultim8p00 said:
Wait so she's suing the company for like 33 million or something and...wants her position restored? Wat?
Click to expand...
33 million? I missed that part. That's a bit ridiculous. Can't be true.
 
idahoblue said:
So when anyone has a kid they should be demoted and paid less?
Click to expand...

It's none of your business if it's a private company. They can do literally anything they want within legal constratint; likewise they could have wanted to demote her for a very long time and the child was a nice excuse. I can explain it again if you don't get it.

Like I said, at the end of the day it's about the dollars and cents. Management at the company will decide, for better or worse. If she did X amount of work prior to the pregnancy and birth and X-Y amount of work after having the child it would be fair to reflect her compensation accordingly. If she expected to do X-Y amount of work while receiving X position's pay and position then it was an unjustified desire. It depends on whether she could do all the flying and running apparently crucial to her job after she had her child.

Everyone wants to impose their philosophies on others. Governments with strong protectionist policies do this by regulating (forcing) companies to give maternal leave, equal pay rights etc. In the absence of this superceding dogmatic force of government, a company's management is the economic decision-making force. And to them it's either a good business decision or a bad one.
 
Sorry, just because a company is "private" doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants. Most countries have laws protecting female employees who get pregnant. It's kind of important..

gantz85 said:
It's none of your business if it's a private company. They can do literally anything they want; they could have wanted to demote her for a very long time and the child was a nice excuse. I can explain it again if you don't get it.
Click to expand...
You're incredibly, amazingly wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
usea said:
Sorry, just because a company is "private" doesn't mean it can do whatever it wants. Most countries have laws protecting female employees who get pregnant. It's kind of important..


You're incredibly, amazingly wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Did you read the rest of my post or are you deliberately being stupid?
 
About that last line. Honestly every person I know with kids has said the opposite, that you DO have to lessen your career to have a kid. I'm sure that's not the case for some people, but having kids can really change you life (duh). That doesn't mean you quit your job, but aren't going to be that fast-tracker working 12 hours a day anymore.
 
gantz85 said:
It's none of your business if it's a private company. They can do literally anything they want within legal constratint; likewise they could have wanted to demote her for a very long time and the child was a nice excuse. I can explain it again if you don't get it.

Like I said, at the end of the day it's about the dollars and cents. Management at the company will decide, for better or worse. If she did X amount of work prior to the pregnancy and birth and X-Y amount of work after having the child it would be fair to reflect her compensation accordingly. If she expected to do X-Y amount of work while receiving X position's pay and position then it was an unjustified desire. It depends on whether she could do all the flying and running apparently crucial to her job after she had her child.

Everyone wants to impose their philosophies on others. Governments with strong protectionist policies do this by regulating (forcing) companies to give maternal leave, equal pay rights etc. In the absence of this superceding dogmatic force of government, a company's management is the economic decision-making force. And to them it's either a good business decision or a bad one.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just because you don't think what they have done should be illegal, does not make it legal.

Edit: Your last paragraph is funny to me, given you were ranting about what is legal, then about people forcing their views on others, then spouting libertarian ethics that are not held in much of the world.
 
idahoblue said:
Exactly. Just because you don't think what they have done should be illegal, does not make it legal.
Click to expand...

I don't get your post though.

In the absence of legal regulations relevant to the affair, this entire issue is an economic one.

In the presence of legal regulations relevant to the affair, this issue is a legal one.


End of.
 
idahoblue said:
Edit: Your last paragraph is funny to me, given you were ranting about what is legal, then about people forcing their views on others, then spouting libertarian ethics that are not held in much of the world.
Click to expand...

This paragraph isn't funny because it isn't making sense so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sony sued for £1.97 billion over PSN monopoly
2 3 4 5 6
294
1K
AmuroChan replied
Call of Duty advert banned for trivialising sexual violence
2
53
670
uncreativename replied
Picross S Konami Antiques Edition announced. Releasing 4/30.
7
175
a multicultural team of v replied
It's time to forgive Konami.??
2
66
1K
BigDeadFreak replied
Konami announces Rev.Noir | State of Play 2026
News Trailer  2
60
993
NanaMiku replied
Top Bottom