米国は法定の産休はありません。女性は出産後すぐ働いていますが、骨格の違う日本人が真似できるとは思えない。保育園が高いのは事実、新生児なら一人１０万位はかかると思いますが、タックスリターンで翌年に半分くらい返ってきます。 https://t.co/njflnTPVFL
— buvery (@buvery) January 26, 2021
最後にもう一度確認です。私と山口先生は結果としてのファクトの認識は共有しています。そこに異存はありません。https://t.co/Y9nfHOhkto
— 女子大生起業家@DM解放中🇨🇳🇯🇵🇺🇸 (@SeanKy_) January 24, 2021
問題は解釈のほうです。確かに前世紀なら男女雇用機会均等法などを必要としていたこともあり、男女差別があったと言っていいでしょう。@baaUBZ8INKYP7U0
↑非常に面白くて有益な議論してますね。勉強になります。
↓引用されている文献・・・１つ目のは批判的なレビューだけどツイートの論者はそこは問題にしていない。
Hormones, Genes and the Corner Office
Meanwhile, women are more likely to leave the labor force and to end up with lower pay and less authority if they come back.
Pinker, a psychologist and a columnist at The Globe and Mail in Canada, is careful to remind her readers that statistics say nothing about the choices women and men make individually. Nor does she entirely discount the effect of sex discrimination or culture in shaping women’s choices. But she thinks these forces play only a bit part. To support this, Pinker quotes a female Ivy League law professor: “I am very skeptical of the notion that society discourages talented women from becoming scientists,” the professor writes. “My experience, at least from the educational phase of my life, is that the very opposite is true.” If women aren’t racing to the upper echelons of science, government and the corporate world despite decades of efforts to woo them, Pinker argues, then it must be because they are wired to resist the demands at the top of those fields.
Because of their biological makeup, she argues, most women want to limit the amount of time they spend at work and to find “inherent meaning” there, as opposed to domination. “Both conflict with making lots of money and rising through the ranks,” she points out.
Pinker is surely right to contest what she calls the “vanilla male model” of success — “that women should want what men want and be heartily encouraged to choose it 50 percent of the time.
In search of the visible woman
The conclusion she reaches, never mind Simone de Beauvoir's liberating message all those years ago, is that biology is destiny. 'People are programmed,' she writes at one point. Women are 'built for comfort, not speed'. Testosterone makes the male of the species more vulnerable, but also more risk-taking. Oxytocin makes women more empathetic.
Susan Pinker's obsession with hormones as destiny assumes women make choices unhampered by cultural baggage. This is allied to a touching faith in market economies; in her world, there are no decisions based, for example, on the assumption that men generally still find it easier to earn more. She offers no challenge to the way corporate capitalism is organised and nowhere suggests that women's frequent decisions to work outside big companies or part-time might be indicative of a structural inequality that could perhaps be worth addressing.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿