Are women more useful to the economy in the bedroom or the boardroom?
Japan
has a problem that foreshadows the future for many developed nations: a
falling birth rate. Its fast-shrinking population means Japan's future
labor force and tax base will shrivel while its costs to maintain the
elderly will grow. This looming economic crisis has forced Japan's
leaders to consider how younger Japanese women should be used to solve
this dilemma. Are women more useful to the Japanese economy in the
bedroom or the boardroom? Should more Japanese women be employed to grow
the economy, or should they have more than their average of 1.3
children?
Japan is not alone. This discussion is part of most
cultures today, including developing nations, where education and
employing women is seen as the key to poverty alleviation. But
ultimately this “bedroom versus boardroom” discussion is a shortsighted
question. It arose largely after the Industrial Revolution changed the
home from being a place of economic productivity to being a place of
consumer goods consumption—and it became more pronounced in the late
20th century as modern businesses began to prize short-term profits.
Thus,
this either/or question is a false feminine dichotomy, one that ignores
the fact that in both scenarios, a woman is creating value. When viewed
in strictly economic terms, the value that mothers create is the
nurture and development of human capital. They bear and rear future
workers. (Fathers are very important to this process, too, but they
aren't the focus of this piece.)
But mothers are invested in this
process for only a segment of their adult lives. As the average life
expectancy for American women today is age 81, that means most women
will have 60 years as adults in which to create value through their own
labors and their investment in the next generation.
The challenge is how
to do that wisely in a culture that largely views the work of parenting
and income generation to be done in separate places.
Young women
today need to understand that our current understanding of home and work
are not how most of humanity has thought about it. Women were always
economically productive, historically speaking—you had to be if you
expected to be warm and well-fed. Historically, women's work revolved
around creating textiles and getting food to the table. These were not
fluffy activities.
They were vital to survival. They could also be done
while bearing and caring for children.
As a person of faith, it
has been helpful for me to look at what the Bible says. Surprisingly,
you don't find the either/or dichotomy there, either. The example of
feminine productivity written thousands of years ago in the Old
Testament Scriptures—the paragon of excellence in Proverbs 31—was a
financially savvy woman who traded in textiles, managed employees,
reared her children and honored her husband. She wasn't a real woman but
a portrait of what excellence looked like in the virtuous wife. Her
profitable activities dominate this picture, and she was commended for
them.
Travel through time, and you soon find industrious women
like Kate Luther in the Reformation era and Sarah Edwards in colonial
America. These women were married to men whose writings and teachings
profoundly affected their eras (Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards,
respectively). But their husbands were not the sole income-producers.
Their wives managed the estates that generated their family's income,
and they did so while rearing large families and housing numerous
guests.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment