Fair? We're woman
This should make any hardcore libertarian as mad as Michael Moore on an empty stomach.
I wrote about population drop in Japan. This is the reason why population drops.
If a woman works at a company, she can get fired for being pregnant (that happens often), since it’s not illegal to fire because of that cause. Once she’s fired andt has a child, it’s often very hard to go back to work since employer seldom hire people who’ve been, according to them, “unemployed” (because that’s what you are if you give birth). Many researcher here on my lab are very young and very talented. If they’d have a baby, they’d probably loose everything they have worked so hard for.
Being pregnant is a burden men can’t bear. Since women are the ones to do it, it would be fair to let them keep the job (most of the people would agree on this). But on the other hand, to let them keep the salary is not ok, since they’re not working. It’s not a human right to have a child, but in order for humanity to continue, we need to make sure that babies are being born. And this theory is unfair in a way, since men don’t have to loose anything. But it would be even more unfair for the employer to pay when someone has a child.
Either way, there is no solution to the problem. The best way to solve this is like this; The woman work thought the whole pregnancy, in case of illness because of pregnancy, same rules will be applied as in any case of sickness. When she gives birth, she can take “vacation days” or other free days. After work, she can start working if she’s not sick, same rules will be applied as in any case of sickness.
This is actually what career woman have been doing. This is the cynical reality, sorry to say that if you haven’t figure it out!
They say that having a child is the most amazing thing that can happen, and that includes men. So society, men and woman will be winner by changing the rules here in Japan at least.
So when I asked the Japanese if they found it fair, they answer was;
-Fair? We're woman.
I wrote about population drop in Japan. This is the reason why population drops.
If a woman works at a company, she can get fired for being pregnant (that happens often), since it’s not illegal to fire because of that cause. Once she’s fired andt has a child, it’s often very hard to go back to work since employer seldom hire people who’ve been, according to them, “unemployed” (because that’s what you are if you give birth). Many researcher here on my lab are very young and very talented. If they’d have a baby, they’d probably loose everything they have worked so hard for.
Being pregnant is a burden men can’t bear. Since women are the ones to do it, it would be fair to let them keep the job (most of the people would agree on this). But on the other hand, to let them keep the salary is not ok, since they’re not working. It’s not a human right to have a child, but in order for humanity to continue, we need to make sure that babies are being born. And this theory is unfair in a way, since men don’t have to loose anything. But it would be even more unfair for the employer to pay when someone has a child.
Either way, there is no solution to the problem. The best way to solve this is like this; The woman work thought the whole pregnancy, in case of illness because of pregnancy, same rules will be applied as in any case of sickness. When she gives birth, she can take “vacation days” or other free days. After work, she can start working if she’s not sick, same rules will be applied as in any case of sickness.
This is actually what career woman have been doing. This is the cynical reality, sorry to say that if you haven’t figure it out!
They say that having a child is the most amazing thing that can happen, and that includes men. So society, men and woman will be winner by changing the rules here in Japan at least.
So when I asked the Japanese if they found it fair, they answer was;
-Fair? We're woman.
posted by Diana Chavlah at 11:29 p.m.
4 Comments:
You make a good point. Having guaranteed salaries for women who become pregnant creates incentives for the employer either not to hire women, or at least not to pay them as much. I am sure that this effect already contributes to the overall wage differences seen between men and women.
If there is a clear social need for more children to be born, then the government can grant subsidies to have children, but to put the burden on employers only ends up distorting the labour market sometimes having the opposite of the intended effect.
I think people often forget that the incentive for career women not to have children has made developed society much wealthier per capita, and perhaps has saved humanity from a Malthusian type problem of overpopulation.
Regarding the Japanese women's reaction, it is quite sad to me as an outsider that respect for women in Japan compares with that in Italy.
Hi Diana - just to introduce myself, I am Lee, a member of Pro-Test. Chris sent me your URL and I'll be checking in on the blog from time to time. I used to live in Japan so I'm sure I'll find it interesting.
You're wrong when you say there is no human right to have a child: the UN Declaration on Human Rights states, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family" (Art 16:1). I think that's pretty irrelevant though. What's at issue here is a socio-economic right, not a civil-political right, i.e., the right to employment is what's really being withheld, not the right to have a child.
I found gender identities and roles very starkly defined in Japan, but there are signs of change, I think. As more women have entered the workforce, for instance, the traditional expectation that a man's wife would care for his elderly parents is now diminishing, evidenced by the fact that the government recently introduced a tax to pay for old age pensions increases and to provide for care assistance.
Another trend is Japanese women marrying later or refusing to marry at all.
A further trend is the declining population. Japan is so xenophobic that they are unlikely to accept the large scale immigration to solve their demographic crisis (1,000 Filipino nurses is not large scale immigration). One Japanese once told me that if it was a choice between mass immigration or building robots, they would build robots. That is probably not feasible, so more flexible working patterns for women will probably become a necessity.
It's also worth noting that the patterns you identify are not universal. Women have limited legal rights but some employers are better at providing flexible working practices than others, particularly transnationals.
Dear Lee,
I am glad about your comments, and I look forward to hear you comments and oppinions since you've been here.
About labour and the human right of having children; it's irrelevant as you also wrote (what I meant was that it's not an employers duty to pay for other peoples children, event though it's written betwen the lines).
The whole issue is of corse socio-economic.But since giving birth is a necessary thing in order to maintain humanity, they employment rules has to be changed here.
When a woman gives up her job in order to have babies, her energy that she puts on the children is a form of raising them is an investment to society in form of future work force and social capital. As you correctly wrote, the Japanese are not happy about the mass immigrant idea, but at the same time, the conditions of raising children are terrible if you’re a woman in the middle of you carrier. As it was written in the link you sent over (thank you for that), a baby sitter cost in average 18 USD an hour.
If we are to talk about gender identities and roles, my analyze is that Japanese want to give us an impression of the fact they are equal. On the surface, yes, they are equal but in reality they are not (my female colleagues for example has to work harder than the male ones and often they have to give up their spare time in order to help out at home).
Woman dress more feminin here and act more feminin that back in Europe I think. But bein equal between the sex is being unequal.
There really is no solution to this problem, as I wrote.
pace wrote...
>If there is a clear social need for more children to be born, then the government can grant subsidies to have children, but to put the burden on employers only ends up distorting the labour market sometimes having the opposite of the intended effect>
I could not agree more. No matter how you twist and turn, the whole thing is unfair.
>I think people often forget that the incentive for career women not to have children has made developed society much wealthier per capita, and perhaps has saved humanity from a Malthusian type problem of overpopulation.>
The problem I se it is that in order for woman to become equal (in the career and in general), they have to act like man and give up children.
The parts of the world that are overpopulated, you can se a tendency for woman being underprivilege men. And in that sense you're right (they're nothing more than an "egg farm unfortunately).
Post a Comment
<< Home