Can confirm, again. Was often babysat by older relatives and have in turn looked after relatives' kids when they were small.

If the mother did not take care of them, who did? The father?

I fail to see the problem?

There are differences between people.

You don't say.

-- when saying that children need constant care and affection,

When they're like one year old, sure. But after they stop being totally helpless little larva kindergartens exist for a reason.

If you decide to jump in the discussion for some reason, then go read everything I have said dumbass. I said up to 18 months. Depending on the kid, it can be +-6.

Controlling Asian mother shows up.

Ex-girlfriend shows up.

Drama incoming.

Also, the whole "once she gets a kid, she'll be a useless burden and quit" thing is not exclusive to Japan.

Even Germany is still like that: a woman is expected to take care of her child at home or she's branded "a bad mother". No need to even ask the father to "sacrifice" his career instead.

In France, mothers have a paid 3 months maternity leave and a guarantee, by law, to have their job back. But hey, socialized healthcare. Damn commies.

What is with all you people saying stuff like "Omg! expected to take care of her child at home! Bullshit!!". Do you guys even know of developmental psychology? Of Erik H. Erikson, Margaret Mahler, Daniel Stern and so on? The motherly contact and constant care is NEEDED, otherwise the child will have psychological and neurotic problems- Why do people keep giving their opinion without knowing anything. The child needs the mother. Since the mother can not bring her child to work 24/7, she has to stay at home until the child is old enough, which is about 18 months. Why is everything female oppression to people like you... Understand that sometimes there is a reason behind things like these. If you are not willing to sacrifice, then don't have a fucking child. Jeez

If you work 24/7, you should really quit your job, regardless of your gender.
Whatever you say about psychology, fact is that all kids I know who were born in families where the mother worked ended up growing just fine as healthy and happy people. The mother also doesn't need to be 24/7 talking to the child, either. And most of the time when there's negligence, it has nothing to do with work.

We both know I don't actually mean 24/7 lel. Fact is what I said. If the mother did not take care of them, who did? The father? There are differences between people. There is a thing called "Dandelion Child" which basically says, that genetically, the kid as an individual is more resilient to such problems. There is also a thing called "risk and resilience" where the child can find help in form of its own resilience and help from the environment it lives in. Would literally take me 300 pages to explain everything, but trust me, I know what I am talking about when saying that children need constant care and affection, and that the mother is necessary. I would love to show you a pic of the 1500 page psychology book I had to go through, but I don't know how hahahaha.

I don't know where to start with what you write without getting angry. That's exactly the kind of bullshit and appeal to authority that was spouted when it was time to enact laws about same-sex marriage and children raised by these couples.

IT'S TRUE: I READ IT IN A 1500 PAGES BOOK! SO THERE!

Saying things like "the mother is absolutely necessary or the child will have psychological/neurotic problems" is just that: an excuse.

It's a cultural problem not a nature problem. Yes, children need care and affection. No, it doesn't have to be the mother exclusively. And no, it doesn't even have to be a woman. You're making it sound like men are unable to take care of children. Breaking news: they are.

Nature is smarter than you: single mother, single father, couples with man and woman, couples with two men, couples with two women, even raising children as a group/village/community: everything works as long everyone is committed to give care and affection. The rest is politics and society's hypocrisy.

If you decide to jump in the discussion for some reason, then go read everything I have said dumbass. I said up to 18 months. Depending on the kid, it can be +-6.

And from this we derive that it is necessary for the mother to wholesale give up life outside housework because of why exactly?

Because that's basically what you've been arguing.

... even if everyone agreed that mothers absolutely needed to be home for 20 years after their children are born ... let's not forget that the character in question is NOT a mother/pregnant. She didn't give any reason whatsoever for anyone to question her commitment or that she's otherwise incapable of following a career path the company wants her to take. What other women do isn't her problem.

This is discrimination in the most plain and obvious form you'll find it - she's punished simply for her gender; same as others might be for the color of their skin or religion or whatever.

But I kinda doubt any of this will be super-relevant for the plot. Nice to see a problem beyond immediate personal relationships mentioned for once, though.

Controlling Asian mother shows up.

Ex-girlfriend shows up.

Drama incoming.

Also, the whole "once she gets a kid, she'll be a useless burden and quit" thing is not exclusive to Japan.

Even Germany is still like that: a woman is expected to take care of her child at home or she's branded "a bad mother". No need to even ask the father to "sacrifice" his career instead.

In France, mothers have a paid 3 months maternity leave and a guarantee, by law, to have their job back. But hey, socialized healthcare. Damn commies.

What is with all you people saying stuff like "Omg! expected to take care of her child at home! Bullshit!!". Do you guys even know of developmental psychology? Of Erik H. Erikson, Margaret Mahler, Daniel Stern and so on? The motherly contact and constant care is NEEDED, otherwise the child will have psychological and neurotic problems- Why do people keep giving their opinion without knowing anything. The child needs the mother. Since the mother can not bring her child to work 24/7, she has to stay at home until the child is old enough, which is about 18 months. Why is everything female oppression to people like you... Understand that sometimes there is a reason behind things like these. If you are not willing to sacrifice, then don't have a fucking child. Jeez

If you work 24/7, you should really quit your job, regardless of your gender.
Whatever you say about psychology, fact is that all kids I know who were born in families where the mother worked ended up growing just fine as healthy and happy people. The mother also doesn't need to be 24/7 talking to the child, either. And most of the time when there's negligence, it has nothing to do with work.

We both know I don't actually mean 24/7 lel. Fact is what I said. If the mother did not take care of them, who did? The father? There are differences between people. There is a thing called "Dandelion Child" which basically says, that genetically, the kid as an individual is more resilient to such problems. There is also a thing called "risk and resilience" where the child can find help in form of its own resilience and help from the environment it lives in. Would literally take me 300 pages to explain everything, but trust me, I know what I am talking about when saying that children need constant care and affection, and that the mother is necessary. I would love to show you a pic of the 1500 page psychology book I had to go through, but I don't know how hahahaha.

I don't know where to start with what you write without getting angry. That's exactly the kind of bullshit and appeal to authority that was spouted when it was time to enact laws about same-sex marriage and children raised by these couples.

IT'S TRUE: I READ IT IN A 1500 PAGES BOOK! SO THERE!

Saying things like "the mother is absolutely necessary or the child will have psychological/neurotic problems" is just that: an excuse.

It's a cultural problem not a nature problem. Yes, children need care and affection. No, it doesn't have to be the mother exclusively. And no, it doesn't even have to be a woman. You're making it sound like men are unable to take care of children. Breaking news: they are.

Nature is smarter than you: single mother, single father, couples with man and woman, couples with two men, couples with two women, even raising children as a group/village/community: everything works as long everyone is committed to give care and affection. The rest is politics and society's hypocrisy.

Again. You are barking up the wrong tree as I have said. That "1500 page book" is a well renowned psychology book read in the highest levels of the education. There is no problem with same sex people having children lol. It is hard to explain to people with absolutely no knowledge of anything scientifically based, so anything I say will be interpreted wrongly. It is a spectrum I can in no way explain in so few words. What I can tell you is, that evolutionary based, the child has the perfect capabilities to be with the mother. Like its sight. It can only see clearly for about 30cm in front of it, which is the exact distance from the mother's breasts to her face where the eye contact happens. Idk how i could possibly explain things to you since you know nothing to begin with.

If you decide to jump in the discussion for some reason, then go read everything I have said dumbass. I said up to 18 months. Depending on the kid, it can be +-6.

And from this we derive that it is necessary for the mother to wholesale give up life outside housework because of why exactly?

Because that's basically what you've been arguing.

Who said the mother had to give up lol. You can always get your job back, but in no way is it possible for the parents to work when having a child. Again, if you are not willing to give up work for some time, don't get a child. And people keep saying that men should give up their job once the baby is old enough, but on average, a man earns more, so most of the time that would not be smart. Only if the woman earns more and has a better career should the man give up his for that while. And you better not hit me with the wage gap argument, because that has and will never be true

Okay, I've heard enough from NiccoloPaganini to decide that you're way too argumentative, a sock of an already banned member and that your concertos are frankly overrated despite your technical ability.

Say hi to your MENSA buddies for me, and don't ever come back.

Ohoho. I'm going to suppose that Ayaka is an ex? Wonder if she'll just be a love rival who won't play a major role... or... if she'll change the course of this story completely. I'm excited

your concertos are frankly overrated despite your technical ability.

I don’t know, Nez, the concertos are kinda fun showstoppers every once in a while.

Dead on about the rest of it, though. Thanks for doing such a good job.

Lol, got a good laugh out of that NiccoloPaganini tool. Entire argument basically boiled down to "I'm correct because my personal investments have given me the right to never be wrong about anything ever. You're just too inferior to me to understand!"

Y'know what they say; you only fully understand something once you reach the point that you can properly explain it to somebody else. Again, every refuted point just came back to "it would totally take too long to explain! It's impossible!" as they claim their argument is based off completely 100% unbiased objective peer-reviewed scientific studies. Sources? What are those? Name dropping is good enough, right?

Anyways, story seems like it might end up being good. Have some concerns about the path it might develop, especially regarding this ex character being introduced. Two most common ways for that to go are either the main cast member becoming uncertain of themselves, or, worst case scenario, the trite development of some random innocent misunderstanding being blown out of proportion, followed by assumptions upon assumptions, and a complete and total inability to properly communicate and discuss things with each other like adults... anyways, hopefully neither of those happen.

Junior-senior relationship instead of kouhai-senpai relationship. I think I fall in love with whatever translated this ♥

Polioro posted:

Junior-senior relationship instead of kouhai-senpai relationship.

That is exactly the same thing.

Junior-senior relationship instead of kouhai-senpai relationship. I think I fall in love with whatever translated this ♥

Pretty sure that's virtually the same thing

Ohh look, the baggage appeared, better buckle up

As a Kodama manga I was expecting a certain level of scum, the nominal lack of it was refreshing. Also cute.

I...I am shocked. Where is the drama? Where is the het sex? I think this proves it, Kodama must be possessed by some yuri spirit!

Turns out honest conversations can solve all sorts of interpersonal problems. Who knew?

Man... I really wished this would have gone a little longer, it was so good and had so mutch potential... Oh well, at least it had an happy ending.

WONDERFULLLLLLL

Oh wow, a Happy ending XD

Wut? This was a really adorable story. Did Lily Maria brainwash Kodama-sensei or something?

Hana was acting sweet too and chose to take it slow with Machi, who is really, really inexperienced with the intimate stuff.

Bonus points for that trolling card the girls send to Machi's parents in the end. :)

last edited at Jun 24, 2018 7:17AM

So Kodama needed to divert all the negative energy into her other series in order to turn this one into pure, overwhelming fluff. I see.

First Citrus and now this. Is this the month for underwhelming manga chapters?

Loved it. Stereotypical drama averted.