worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.) wrote in message news:<73fde4f0.0408050859.1a70698e@posting.google.com>...
> imouttahere@mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote in message news:<dd5de929.0408042110.6418720c@posting.google.com>...
> > worthj1970@yahoo.com (John W.) wrote in message news:<73fde4f0.0408041120.734ee7ec@posting.google.com>...

> But what the author misses is that women don't even have the choice to be
> equal with men, and even though laws say otherwise and 'technically'
> they have the same options, the reality is very different,
> particularly outside of Tokyo.

yeah, that's how the employment situation now isn't half as bad as it
could be in Japan...

I almost see the chauvinist side here. Men & women are plumbed
differently, and I do think mothers make better homemakers than
fathers, and due to the childbearing downtime it is inarguably more
efficient to hire a man instead of a woman for a career-track
position.

It goes against my libertarian streak for us to formalize this
division of labor with overt discriminatory hiring practices, but on
the other hand the socialist in me thinks we'd have a better society
overall for it (one negative impact that two-income middle-class
households do is bid up the price of real-estate).

But in the end it's unfair to individual women to lessen their
absolute right to be treated equally. It behooves us to hire the best
person for the job, regardless of 'efficiency' issues.