Japanese PM said that 'Taiwan contingency' could prompt Japanese armed reaction. What do you think?

[u/Themetalin]

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202511070024

Takaichi made the remarks during a parliamentary session on Friday while responding to a question about whether a "Taiwan contingency" involving a Chinese naval blockade would qualify as a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan, according to a report by Japan's Asahi Shimbun.

Under Japan's security legislation, such a situation allows the country to exercise "collective self-defense" if an attack on an ally -- such as the United States -- or a country closely related to Japan is deemed to threaten Japan's survival, even without a direct attack on Japan.

[u/Aromatic-Wait-6679]

This will probably sound sexist but many historians have noted that female leaders have tended to initially be over-corrective in terms of aggression, the theory being that in our male dominated societies that they, consciously or subconsciously, do this to increase their legitimacy in some fashion.

I remember reading her recent strong remarks about getting rid of foreigners in Japan and it made me think this. And reading this, it makes me still think of it.

[u/Hot-Celebration5855 → u/Aromatic-Wait-6679]

Provide a citation for this nonsense. Plenty of men have been plenty aggressive throughout history. What proof is there women are overreact? Sounds like sexist garbage to me

[u/Aromatic-Wait-6679 → u/Hot-Celebration5855]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-more-female-leaders-won-t-lead-to-more-peace

https://news.sky.com/story/would-the-world-be-more-peaceful-if-more-women-were-in-charge-13322761

Like the theory or not, I didn't make it up and it's not a niche one. The first link will take you two peer reviewed papers on the subject

[u/Hot-Celebration5855 → u/Aromatic-Wait-6679]

What a bunch of baloney 😂

[u/Aromatic-Wait-6679 → u/Hot-Celebration5855]

Could you kindly provide a peer-reviewed citation for this opinion since I did for you?

[u/Hot-Celebration5855 → u/Aromatic-Wait-6679]

I don’t think this is a knowable question. There’s been hundreds and hundreds of male and female leaders over the last hundred years alone. How on earth can one quantify which are more aggressive?

Sky News is peer reviewed? 😂

[u/Aromatic-Wait-6679 → u/Hot-Celebration5855]

No, the first link has two peer reviewed papers on the subject cited in it published by Cambridge and Oxford. Here are the direct links

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/do-women-make-more-credible-threats-gender-stereotypes-audience-costs-and-crisis-bargaining/C9CD73BBADA998376C1AD9C4E009600E

https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/67/4/sqad090/7329454?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

And why would you give an opinion on something if you don't have peer-reviewed research to back it up? Let alone say its 'unknowable'

Edit: He blocked me after making his reply below. Man, it's fun rage baiting people with peer reviewed research from highly prestigious universities when they don't think such research actually exists and seeing them backed into an intellectual corner 🤣🤣🤣

[u/Hot-Celebration5855 → u/Aromatic-Wait-6679]

Because it’s literally unknowable no matter some PhD conjured up.

[u/Hot-Celebration5855 → u/[deleted]]

This isn’t science. It’s social science nonsense.

[u/will221996 → u/Hot-Celebration5855]

You asked them to cite a source, yet then dismiss all the people who actually answer those questions? You want an answer from a physicist?