The Role of Women in Japanese Companies

Before coming to Japan, I would have never thought myself a feminist in any sense of the word. I never felt particularly discriminated against because I was of the "weaker"sex.  In the almost three years of living in Japan, I've started to have a change of heart.  In a country where husbands are still expected to speak on behalf of their wives, a majority of young girls still dream of growing up to be Shufu (housewives), and many companies fear hiring young single women expecting them to quit the second they get married, it has started to dawn on me that maybe not all people were created equally, especially in the workplace.

There are a lot of things that can be discussed (see article - Global Gender Gap - Japanese women are 94 out of 134 countries in equality in the workplace) that I'm not going to get into.  A lot cultural norms and expectations can be thrown out to explain this data.  I don't have the time or energy to discuss every angle of this debate. But at the end of the day all I want to know is, if Japanese women wanted to work, do they have the same opportunities for employment as Japanese men?

I've asked this question to many Japanese men and women.  Women will almost always give a resounding "no", while men tend to be convinced that Japanese women don't want to work, they want to maintain the status quo of housewife and mother which is still a strong cultural expectation. However, if you read this government statistics website, you will see that women's opinions are changing. More women want to work and more women want to continue working while they have children.

So what's stopping them?
Most people would agree that the Japanese workplace is stressful.  The expectations placed on workers for long hours,  few holidays, intense after hours drinking and OCD like training, can make even the most sane person feel insane.  Many employees at major companies crack under the pressure.  But quitting a job or losing a job can mean career suicide to the average Japanese.  Mobility between jobs is extremely low and still highly frowned upon (despite recent TV dramas depicting a trend in companies that help people change jobs).  Add to all of this the fact that many women are placed under the status of non-regular employee (54% of women and 19% of men), it's no wonder that many women feel discouraged.  If your job is always seen as temporary, it may be impossible to ever establish a career (see the stat on the number of women placed in clerical positions).  With all of this, it's no wonder more women still opt for the less stressful route of being a Shufu (housewife).

What is the result of current Japanese cultural views on women in the workplace?
1 in 3 single Japanese women fall below the poverty line. As jobs for men no longer fall under lifelong employment, the concept of marriage as a way to achieve security is slowly starting to erode.  Fewer men and women are wanting to get married for various reasons, leading to a falling birth rate which means soon Japan will no longer be able to support it's top heavy population.  Leaving them to either increase the amount of foreign workers or tap into a already present but under represented workforce: women.

How do men feel about this (mind you I've only talked to men in Tokyo about this where the workplace environment is much different than in rural areas)?

I think many men like the idea of having a wife to care and provide for them as the cultural norm. However, if they really want to practice self-sacrifice for the greater good of the country, they would acknowledge the fact that the greatest economic prosperity in Japan occurred during the 80's at the height of female employment (table 8).
 
On the other hand, I've talked to quite a few disillusioned Japanese men (both young and old). It seems that more and more men don't feel like they can marry because they don't have the economic means to support a housewife or family.  The men who do marry and have children feel the strain of having to be the sole provider for a family in such dire economic times. With job security unstable and cost of living staying the same or even slightly rising, it can put a large burden on men in the workplace.  Recently, many Japanese men that I have talked with have said that they want their wives to continue working and to become more financially independent.  Part of this desire might stem from the cultural practice of the women taking the man's salary and then paying out a small allowance for him to spend.  While some men are ok with this, some men seem to becoming a bit bitter about the freedom and spending power of their unemployed wives.  Similarly, men feel that single women have become too difficult, expect too much from the men financially.  They would much rather be single than in a relationship where they feel expected to give more than they receive.  Thus many fewer men and women wanting to get married. 

So what does this have to do with women in the workplace?

Kathy Matsui, of Goldman Sachs believes that if Japan employed more women the GDP could rise 17%. If you ask most Japanese men and women how to solve a majority of Japan's economic and even population crisis problems, they will almost always say, "change the Japanese work place."  Both sexes agree that changes need to be made to change the level of stress inflicted by employment in Japanese companies and that there needs to be an increase female employment. 

So what happens next?
1) Cultural expectations of gender roles in relationships have to be more flexible. I know, this is quite taboo.  Especially as many older Japanese people mourn the fact that young women no longer embrace the concept of ryōsai kenbo (the result of the Bubble economy where parents spoiled their children).  Many feel that this was really the downturn of everything and that if Japan would stop following the West, everything would go back to normal.  You know, normal, as in the Taisho period when nationalism was all the rage and women were considered incompetent.  I've even heard older people talk about the glory of the Meiji period and Edo period...seriously? I guess to some people those were the good ol' days (even though almost no one living now was alive during that time).  At the end of the day, it comes down to cultural changes.  I'm sorry, but every culture at some point has to change in order to keep up with global changes. Needs, wants, and desires of the population shift and thus changes in cultural norms and expectations will have to shift with them in order for the country to survive. No culture has ever survived by going backwards.  I believe Japanese people are trying to make this change, but are in the midst of growing pains where they can't quite work out how these changes fit in with cultural expectations that they were raised with. 

2) Women need more opportunities to develop careers in order to drop poverty rate and increase financial independence:

a) Programs, like this one, need to be expanded to provide full-time employment
b) Adequate childcare programs need to be made more accessible and affordable
c) Mentality about women in the workplace has to start changing. This will probably need to be done through government programs starting as early as elementary school as well as government initiatives and incentives to place requirements on companies to train (not just promote) women to become leaders.

What is the True Face of the Japanese During a Time of Crisis?

Last night I went to volunteer to refill bottles of shampoo and conditioner to be sent to women's shelters and children's shelters (through Hands on Tokyo).  While there, I met a couple on vacation from San Fran.  The decided to spend one night of their trip volunteering in order to do something to help Japan in their time of need.  As many articles show, people from around the world have shown their support for the Japanese and many Japanese have taken it upon themselves to also provide aide and assistance in any way they can.  I think most people are working hard to keep the economy going and in their own way trying put their heads down and grin and bear it (like this article refers to).  And the world recognizes this calm persistence and has been openly admiring and congratulating them on such attitude. 

Before I say anything more, I should say that everyone is working very hard to get things back to normal.  There is a strong sense of need to help in any way possible.  I also realize that it is against Japanese culture to display emotion, especially while other people are also suffering.  Many people are managing to be strong and brave the difficulties they are facing.  And I think most would agree that it wouldn't help if people were just sitting around focused on the dim future ahead of them and spending all day crying.  And someone certainly has to do the difficult jobs that lay ahead for Japan.

However, I recently read this article and started to wonder, have the Japanese really responded so much more calmly than the rest of the world?  And I'm not talking about lawless behavior, but internal, shear emotional response.  The author of this article mentions how serene the Japanese are in the face of disaster compared to other countries in similar situations.  He goes on about how foreigners expressed strong feeling and pain openly, but how Japanese remain calm and even manage a "genuine" smile (though I wonder how he can tell it's genuine).   From young, Japanese are discouraged from openly showing emotion.  Are they really bravely facing the disaster?  Or are they responding in the way that they have been trained to respond in?  Does their serene outwards face reflect what is happening on the inside?

Japan Tsunami:

                                 

                       
Is he calmly accepting his fate, or is that tension I see in his jaw?






Other disasters

Are the Japanese really any different from the people in the other pictures?  Or do they face more cultural pressure and obligation to hide their feelings than people in other cultures?  I'm sure some Japanese were screaming and yelling in the face of the tsunami as they watched their houses and possibly loved ones get dragged out to sea.  Foreign media seems to try and find the most tragic people to shoot, interview and photograph.  However, Japanese media, following Japanese culture, usually chooses to find the person most displaying true "Japanese" spirit.   Can we really prove who faced what more bravely?  And are our attempts to romanticize and admire the calm response of the Japanese in the face of great, possibly disastrous, personal and economic trials, really be for the best of the survivors?

I wonder...Should we really be praising "Gaman" and shouting "Ganbarou" to a group of people that are quite literally at their breaking point?  At first it was inspiring and motivating, but at this stage, what kind of message are we sending?  What kind of additional pressure to remain strong is being placed on these people who by now just want to break down?  How long will the rigid nature of Japanese culture insist that these people, who have suffered losses beyond compare, keep up the calm face?  



Nuke Workers Risk Death by Overworking and Stress:
Is it worth risking the lives of these men because culture and society demands them to put aside their own fears?  I understand if someone wanted to do it, but are obligation and desire the same thing in this case? Or is there a way to both solve the problems with the reactor, while providing some relief to these men?

People Continue to Face Trial After Trial.  Even once the tsunami has cleared and the aftershocks have died down, people continue to face adversity up North with increased rates of pneumonia. 

Sailor Bares all in order to Avoid Being Sent back to Iwate:
Clearly this man is not fit to be doing the job they are expecting him to do.  Will the rigid nature of Japanese culture require this man to return to perform his social obligation?  What are the long term affects on this man's mental well-being? 

What are the long-term psychological effects and strain that come with "Ganbarou"?  
A recent Japan Times article stated that 150 mental health workers were sent up North to hinanjo to provide support, however they found that very few people took advantage of this help.   A 74 year old man was interviewed as saying to admit you need mental help is weak.  That talking to someone won't solve his problems, so why do it, especially when everyone else is just as depressed. That he has faced enough disaster to be strong.  But why does being strong have to equate with shielding your emotions.  Does crying in front of other people over burden them? Japanese say it is irresponsible to show such emotion when other people are suffering...but I wonder, who is really being selfish?  Isn't it just as selfish to expect a person to suppress their feelings for your sake?  Especially if you know the kind of long term mental stress that the situation might cause the person if they keep it bottled up?

As this letter from a man in a hinanjo in Miyagi shows, the people's spirits are weakening.  People are hurting.  Everyone knows it...Everyone expects it....so why not allow them to grieve however they choose to?  Why make them feel that grieving their loses is shameful or selfish?  Again, I understand the need to stay strong in the face of adversity, but is there really a need to keep persistently insisting these people stay patient and calm? Or are we possibly just adding to their stress?

Nuclear Radiation and Siberian Winds

So I think I've finally calmed down enough to think a bit more clearly about what is going on and what I need to do to try and help.  A bit embarrassed that it's taken me 4 days to finally relax and use my new abundant free time wisely.

Does anyone else find themselves playing "How quickly can I shower so I sufficiently scrub off the nuclear radiation residue but not get stuck naked when the next big quake hits" every time you hop in the shower, or sitting on your couch with your phone in one hand, your computer open with NHK, BCC, CNN, Facebook, Japan Meteorological, and Tepco pulled up and refreshing every 30 minutes or more, and your tv on running the never-ending AC ads.  Or on the other extreme, are you carrying on business as usual and avoiding all news in order to maintain as much normalcy as possible...OR have you already made the decision to run for the hills, get the hell out of Dodge...well after 3 days of this, I've decided to just figure things out on my own, starting with the biggest concern first.

Threat of Radiation -
Last night I woke up to find that nuclear radiation has blow into Tokyo.  Before I made my trek down to immigration to stand in the 2hour line for a re-entry visa, I decided to figure out whether or not it'd be worth my wait.  I got on-line and started reading.  What I found, at this time the threat of nuclear radiation in Tokyo sits at 1/100th the accepted levels (siting my source 2...notice a pattern for information.... Or the more numbers based and not related to NHK).  But what exactly do these numbers mean?  To find out what these numbers mean check the chart at the bottom of the post stolen without permission from this site World Nuclear.org

To look at current radiation levels in Japan, check out: Japan Radiation levels
Here are the main prefectures listed on there:
1) Hokkaido, 2) Aomori-ken,  3)Iwate,  4) Miyagi,  5)Akita,  6) Yamagata,  7) Fukushima ....11) Saitama,  12) Chiba,  13) Tokyo, 14) Kanagawa

On the down side, NHK just posted that Radiation scanners have malfunctioned and they're not sure when they will get back up...in the meantime we are having 75km/h winds blasting Tokyo coming from the NNW. 

It really makes one wonder what's going to happen next....

10,000 mSv (10 sieverts) as a short-term and whole-body dose would cause immediate illness, such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, and subsequent death within a few weeks. Between 2 and 10 sieverts in a short-term dose would cause severe radiation sickness with increasing likelihood that this would be fatal.

1,000 mSv (1 sievert) in a short-term dose is about the threshold for causing immediate radiation sickness in a person of average physical attributes, but would be unlikely to cause death. Above 1000 mSv, severity of illness increases with dose. If doses greater than 1000 mSv occur over a long period they are less likely to have early health effects, but they create a definite risk that cancer will develop many years later.

Above about 100 mSv, the probability of cancer (rather than the severity of illness) increases with dose. The estimated risk of fatal cancer is 5 of every 100 persons exposed to a dose of 1000 mSv (ie. if the normal incidence of fatal cancer were 25%, this dose would increase it to 30%).

50 mSv is, conservatively, the lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults. It is also the highest dose which is allowed by regulation in any one year of occupational exposure. Dose rates greater than 50 mSv/yr arise from natural background levels in several parts of the world but do not cause any discernible harm to local populations.

20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 years is the limit for radiological personnel such as employees in the nuclear industry, uranium or mineral sands miners and hospital workers (who are all closely monitored).

10 mSv/yr is the maximum actual dose rate received by any Australian uranium miner.

3-5 mSv/yr is the typical dose rate (above background) received by uranium miners in Australia and Canada.

3 mSv/yr (approx) is the typical background radiation from natural sources in North America, including an average of almost 2 mSv/yr from radon in air.

2 mSv/yr (approx) is the typical background radiation from natural sources, including an average of 0.7 mSv/yr from radon in air. This is close to the minimum dose received by all humans anywhere on Earth.

0.3-0.6 mSv/yr is a typical range of dose rates from artificial sources of radiation, mostly medical.

0.05 mSv/yr, a very small fraction of natural background radiation, is the design target for maximum radiation at the perimeter fence of a nuclear electricity generating station. In practice the actual dose is less.