『専業主婦に、なりたい！？』（2011/12/05、講談社）の改題いま、専業主婦になることのリスクを説いています。結構売れたのかもしれませんね。新書になったのはもちろんのこと、著者はこの後『「専業主夫」になりたい男たち』という本を同じポプラ新書で出していますから。
わたしがこの本に共感を覚えないのは、わたしが男だからでしょうか。この本が出版されてから10年が経ちます。いまの女子大生が読んでも共感するのかどうかはわかりいません（内容からすると女子学生向けですが、今の女子学生がこの手の本を読むかどうかわかりません。マンガ以外の本自体を読まないんじゃないでしょうか）。
この10年の間にも、日本社会（世界情勢）は変化してきました。著者が思い描いていただろう日本とはなっておらず、男女平等ランキングは120位、ワーキングプア―は解消されず、シングルマザーは貧困率も上がり、このコロナ禍（と言われるもの）の中で、生死の境をさまよっている人が多数います。
著者は当時「内閣府「新たな少子化社会政策大綱」有識者委員」でしたが、著者の意見は採用されたのでしょうか。採用の有無にかかわらす、その「政策大綱」が今日の状況を生んでいることは間違いありません。
平成女子
わたしは昭和生まれの保守的な（？）おじいさんですが、男女平等を刻まれて育ってきました。会社に入り、その男女平等を掲げたときに壁となって立ちはだかったのは、大きな既存の体制であり、そして、味方をしてくれると思っていた女性からの反発でした（わたしのやり方が過激だったのかもしれませんが）。
その後、ジェンダーという言葉が流行りだし、「セクハラ」という言葉が生まれました。そしてさまざまな「ハラ」が生まれています。その中で、わたしは多くは「ハラをする側」の立場だったんじゃないかな、と思っています。
それはとても居心地の悪いものでした。常に周りの目を気にしながら話し、行動しなけらばならないのです。それでは仕事がスムースに進むはずもないと思いました（わたしの大好きな飲みニュケーションもできなくなりました）。
わたしは、すべてのハラスメントが本当にハラスメントされる弱者（少数者とは限らない[1]）の側からつくり出されたのかどうかに疑問をもっています。どうも真面目なマスコミが考えたものから、「部数稼ぎ」に不真面目につくり出されたものまであると思うのです（昨日新たな「〜ハラ」が報道されていましたが、もう忘れました）。
平成女子は生まれたときから、「あなたは弱者です」と言われてきたわけです。それはそれで辛かったんじゃないかと思います。そして、学校で、社会で出会った男子は確かに男子だというだけで優遇されていましたが、いわゆる「強者」ではなかったのではないでしょうか。
わたしは、力もなく、顔がいいわけでもなかったので、決して強者と感じたことはなかったのですが。
「女性は弱者」という報道が常になされている、そして現実は変わらないというのはどんな感じなんでしょうね。わたしにはわかりません。ただ、労働者としてのわたしは、弱者の「気持ち」はわかるつもりです。少年法が改正されました。わたしは弱かったので、高校時代から不良（ヤンキー、暴走族、半グレ）は怖かったです。わたしは真面目な学生でしたが、ドロップ・アウトした彼らの気持ちは身近なものだったし、考えようと努力しました（私自身もドロップ・アウトしたかった）。でも、今思えば、ちっともわかっていなかった。一生懸命考え続けなければわからないんだと思います。
「わからなくても、感じることができる」という趣旨の本の感想文を書いたばかりです。著者に言わせれば、これもファンタジーなのかな。でも、ファンタジーをもち続けて何が悪い？
夫婦関係はおかね？
全体を通して著者が述べているのは「経済的」なことです。「年収400万円より800万円のほうがリスクがある」とか。200万円のほうがよりリスクが有るのは当たり前だと思うのですが。
「主婦の幸せは夫次第」と言わせないために、とか。確かに、今はお見合い結婚はあまりないでしょう。お見合い結婚が当たり前の時代には確かに「主婦の幸せは夫次第」だったかもしれません。そういう意味では、結婚に至る形が変わったのに応じて「主婦の幸せ・・・」も変わっていくでしょう。でも、私は、幸せはパートナー次第だと今では思っています。ただ、すべての面で相手が自分の思いどうりじゃないし（DVをしない限りならないし）、すべての面で幸福な人なんかいないと思うのです。
恋は盲目です。恋愛中は、全てがバラ色の時間があるかもしれません。でも、たとえ家族（親子、兄弟姉妹）だって相手のことがすべてわかるわけじゃないし、わかるということが「ファンタジー」です。それはたとえ見えていても見ない、ということです。「信じること（信仰）」と同じです。人を信じることは大切です。それは「幸せ」の前提であるとともに、騙されること、幻滅すること、自分が不幸になることを「しかたがない」「相手のせいにしない」ということです。
ある種の疑念を常に持ち、見ること、考えることを諦めないことも、今、私たちが生きている社会では必要です。でも、結論は出ません。「考え続けながら諦めること」。そしてそのための時間を確保すること、こそが大切なんだと思います。幸せに生きるためには時間（「とき」）が必要です。
「嫌なところもあるけど、好き」「すべてがバラ色じゃないけど幸せ」ということです。じぶんだって「完璧」な人間なわけじゃないのですから。著者は自分が完璧な人間だと思っているのでしょうか（それとも完璧な人間を目指しているのでしょうか）。
この本に欠けているのは「夫の視点」です。いくら男子座談会に一章（20ページしかないけど）を割いていてもです。
だから、この本の最大の欠点は「（男女の）愛」の視点がないということです。別に愛の講義をしなさいと言っているのではありません。この本に登場する女性は「嫌いな人」と結婚したわけじゃないと思います。もちろん、できちゃった婚とか、成り行きで結婚した人もいるでしょう。でも、この人がいい（この人でいい？）と思ったはずです。
もちろん、相手の年収や社会的地位という打算もあったかもしれません。でも、それが主たる理由で結婚したのだとすれば、相手の性格など関係なかったんじゃないですか。まあ、結婚の理由は横に置いておきましょう。著者は打算を求めているように思えるのです。一種の功利主義なのではないでしょうか。
他人の幸福がわかる？
女性の立場が弱い社会では、それも一つの戦術かもしれません。彼女の同じ女性に対する「思いやり」がそれを言わせているのだと思いたいです。女性の現実を見ているからこそ言えることなのかもしれません。でも、わたしは著者の（彼女たちの）母親が幸せだったか、不幸せだったか、あるいは著者や彼女たち自身が幸せだったか（であるか）不幸だったか（であるか）を判断することはできません。その立場にはないと思います。長年連れ添っている妻のことだって（いまのところ離婚するとは言われていない）、「きっと、ある面では幸せで、ある面（多くの面？）では不幸だ、と思っている」くらいに思っています。では、彼女は幸せなのでしょうか、不幸なのでしょうか。
著者は、インタビューした女性に、「幸せ度」を聞いています。どうやら、「幸せ」「不幸せ」を数値化できると思っているようです（そして、著者の思うような数字が返ってこなければ「リスクが高い」と言います）。いまの私達の社会は、何でも数値化できると思っています。離婚率が36％だから「離婚は当たり前」なのでしょうか。20％だと当たり前じゃないのでしょうか[2]。年収400万より800万のほうがリスクが高い？数字を目安にすることを否定しません。著者が「〜〜委員」をやることができるのも、数字を多く知り、数字を信頼しているからにほかなりません。でも、その数値化こそが多くの「不幸」を生み出しているのだとわたしは思っています。
自分の時間を区切り、売り、お金に変える。なぜそんな事が可能なのでしょう。「可能」というのは「人々が望む」という意味ではありません。むしろ、そのように強制されているのです。
お金（数量化・数値化）が人の幸・不幸を決める（その程度はわかりませんが）と思っている限り、あなたは不幸で、お金持ちは幸福です。お金持ちもあなたを見てそう思っているからです。あなたはいつまでもお金が足りなくて、不幸なのです。少しでも幸福になるためには「あの人に比べればお金がある」と思うしかありません。
社会は変わる
著者が思っているより早く、社会は変わります。そして、著者が思っているより人びとの考えは変わりません。（「常民の常識」（柳田国男）もその一因です。それが別のモノに置き換わりつつあるように思えることが不安ですが。マスクとソーシャルディスタンス。これが大きな一撃にならないことを祈ります。）
その変化は、直線的でもないし、どこかに向かっているわけでもありません。
つまり「進化」するわけではありません。だから、明日、将来、ましてや来世の幸せを望んでもしかたありません。
でも、社会が早く変わること（あるいは変わらないこと）を著者もあなたも経験しているはずです。変わっているのに変わらないと思っている（思わされている）、または、変わっていないのに変わっていると思っている（思わされている）のです。
変化の基準をどこに置くのかということが問題なのです。変化の基準を数字においたとき、それはどこかに基準点を置くものでしかなくなります。「一番でなきゃいけないんですか。二番じゃだめなのですか」と問うときには「二番じゃなきゃだめなんですか・・・」と永遠に続くわけです。だから、問うべきは一番、二番・・・ではなく、「コンピュータは本当に必要なんですか」ということなのです。きっと、蓮舫さんも「コンピュータはいらない」とは思っていないと思うのです。「コロナ対策」に批判的な人も「新型コロナウィルスがあるのか」という問いを発することはありません。
どんどん「新種の（変異株と言っていますが）」「新型コロナウィルス」が発見されています。それでも、「新型コロナウィルスとは何か」という問いは「なぜか」発せられません。
「量」は数値化できます。でも「質」は数値化できません。私たちはそろそろ「数値化の呪縛」から逃れて、質、つまり自然を取り戻さなくてはならないのではないでしょうか。
一つだけ、付け加えます。著者がいう離婚、転勤、リストラ、賃金カット、債務、リーマンショック・・・は阪神淡路大震災、東北大震災などの「自然災害（天災）」じゃないということ（病気は一部は自然災害ですが）。ということは、それらは「防げる」あるいは「なくすことができる」ということです。それらがあたかも「天から降ってくる」と思ってしまうのはそれこそが「危険」だと思います。
⟨impressions⟩
"I want to be a full-time housewife! !?" (2011/12/05, Kodansha)
Now, I'm talking about the risks of becoming a full-time housewife. It may have sold quite well. Not to mention the new book, the author later published a book called "Men who want to be a" stay-at-home husband "" in the same poplar new book.
I don't sympathize with this book because I'm a man. It's been 10 years since this book was published. I don't know if the current female college students will sympathize with it even if they read it (the content is for female students, but I don't know if the current female students will read this kind of book. I don't read books other than manga. Isn't it?).
In the last 10 years, Japanese society (world affairs) has changed. It is not Japan that the author would have envisioned, the gender equality ranking is 120th, the working poor is not resolved, the poverty rate of single mothers is rising, and in this corona disaster (what is said) Many people are wandering between life and death.
The author was a member of the Cabinet Office's "New Charter for the Declining Birthrate and Social Policy" at that time, but was the author's opinion adopted? There is no doubt that the "policy outline", whether or not it is hired, gives rise to today's situation.
Heisei Girls
I'm a conservative (?) Grandfather born in the Showa era, but I grew up with gender equality. When I entered the company and raised gender equality, it was a big existing system that stood in the way, and there was a backlash from women who thought they would be on my side (my way is). It may have been radical).
After that, the word gender became popular, and the word "sexual harassment" was born. And various "harassment" is born. Among them, I think that most of them were in the position of "harassing".
It was very uncomfortable. You have to always talk and act with your eyes in mind. I didn't think the job would go smoothly (I couldn't do my favorite drinking nucation anymore).
I wonder if all harassment was really created from the side of the vulnerable (not necessarily the minority [* 1]) who are harassed. I think there are things that the serious media thought about, and things that were made unscrupulous in "earning copies" (the new "~ Hara" was reported yesterday, but I forgot it already). ..
Heisei girls have been said to be "weak" since they were born. I think it was painful for that. And, at school, the boys I met in society were given preferential treatment just because they were boys, but I think they were not not as so-called "strong men".
I never felt strong because I wasn't strong and had a good face.
What is it like that there are constant reports that "women are vulnerable" and that reality does not change? I do not know. However, as a worker, I will understand the "feelings" of the weak. The Juvenile Law has been amended. I was weak, so I was scared of bad things (Yankees, Bosozoku, Hangure) since high school. I was a serious student, but their feelings of dropping out were familiar and I tried to think (I also wanted to drop out). But when I think about it now, I didn't understand it at all. I think you can't understand unless you keep thinking hard.
I just wrote an impression of a book that says "I can feel it even if I don't understand it." If you ask the author, this is also a fantasy. But what's wrong with having fantasy?
Is there a marital relationship?
The whole thing the author says is "economical". "There is a risk of 8 million yen more than an annual income of 4 million yen." I think it is natural that 2 million yen is more risky.
To prevent people from saying, "Housewife's happiness depends on her husband." Certainly, there aren't many matchmaking marriages right now. In an era when matchmaking marriage was commonplace, it may have been that "housewives' happiness depends on their husbands." In that sense, "housewife's happiness ..." will change as the form of marriage changes. But I now think that happiness depends on my partner. However, in all respects, the other person is not in his own way (unless he does domestic violence), and I don't think anyone is happy in all respects.
Love is blind. During love, everything may have a rosy time. However, even a family member (parent and child, brothers and sisters) does not know everything about the other person, and it is "fantasy" to know. It means that even if you can see it, you will not see it. It is the same as "believing (faith)". It is important to believe in people. It is a premise of "happiness", and it is "unavoidable" and "do not blame the other person" for being deceived, disillusioned, and becoming unhappy.
It is also necessary in the society in which we live now to always have some kind of doubt and not give up on seeing and thinking. But I can't come to a conclusion. "Give up while thinking." And I think it is important to secure the time for that. It takes time (“time”) to live happily.
"I don't like it, but I like it" "It's not all rosy, but I'm happy". I'm not a "perfect" person. Does the author think he is the perfect person (or is he aiming for the perfect person)?
What is lacking in this book is the "husband's point of view". No matter how much one chapter (although there are only 20 pages) is devoted to the men's roundtable discussion.
So the biggest drawback of this book is that it doesn't have a "love (male and female) perspective". I'm not telling you to give a love lecture separately. I don't think the woman in this book was married to a "dislike". Of course, there will be people who have been shotgun or have been married as a matter of course. But she must have thought this person was good (is this person okay?).
Of course, there may have been a calculation of the other party's annual income and social status. But if that was the main reason for getting married, it didn't matter what the other person's personality was. Well, let's set aside the reason for the marriage. The author seems to want a calculation. Isn't it a kind of utilitarianism?
Do you know the happiness of others?
In a society where women are weak, that may be a tactic. She wants to think that her "compassion" for the same woman makes her say that. Maybe it's because she sees the reality of women. But I can't tell if the author's (their) mothers were happy or unhappy, or if the authors and themselves were happy (or unhappy). .. I don't think I'm in that position. Even my wife, who has been with me for many years (not said to be divorced so far), thinks, "I'm sure I'm happy on one side and unhappy on the other side (many?)." I am. So is she happy or unhappy?
The author asks the woman interviewed about her "happiness." She apparently thinks she can quantify "happiness" and "unhappiness" (and says she's "high risk" if she doesn't get the numbers she wants). I think that our society today can quantify anything. Since the divorce rate is 36%, is "divorce a matter of course"? Isn't it natural that it is 20% [* 2]? Is 8 million more risky than 4 million annual income? I do not deny using numbers as a guide. The author can do "~~ committee" only because he knows a lot of numbers and trusts them. However, I think that it is the quantification that creates a lot of "unhappiness."
Divide your time, sell it, and turn it into money. Why is such a thing possible? "Possible" does not mean "people want". Rather, it is forced to do so.
As long as you think that money (quantification / quantification) determines a person's happiness / unhappiness (although I don't know how much), you are unhappy and the rich are happy. The rich also look at you and think so. You are unhappy because you are forever short of money. To be happy even a little, you have to think that you have more money than that person.
Society changes
Society changes faster than the author thinks. And people's thoughts are the same as the author thinks. ("Common sense of the common sense" (Kunio Yanagita) is also one of the reasons. I'm worried that it seems to be replacing something else. Mask and social distance. I hope this will not be a big blow.)
The change is neither linear nor heading anywhere.
In other words, it does not "evolve". Therefore, I can't help but hope for the happiness of tomorrow, the future, let alone the afterlife.
But both the author and you must be experiencing the rapid change (or no change) in society. They think they have changed but they haven't changed (believed), or they haven't changed but they think they have changed (believed).
The question is where to set the standard for change. When you set the reference for change to a number, it only puts a reference point somewhere. When asked, "Do I have to be the first? Is it the second?", "Is it the second?" And it continues forever. Therefore, the question to ask is not the first, second, etc., but "Do you really need a computer?" I'm sure Renho doesn't think he doesn't need a computer either. Even those who are critical of "coronavirus measures" do not ask the question "is there a new type of coronavirus?"
More and more "new species (although it is called a mutant strain)" and "new coronavirus" are being discovered. Still, the question "what is the new coronavirus?" Cannot be asked "for some reason."
"Amount" can be quantified. But "quality" cannot be quantified. Perhaps we must escape from the "curse of quantification" and regain quality, that is, nature.
"I want to be a full-time housewife! !?" (2011/12/05, Kodansha)
Now, I'm talking about the risks of becoming a full-time housewife. It may have sold quite well. Not to mention the new book, the author later published a book called "Men who want to be a" stay-at-home husband "" in the same poplar new book.
I don't sympathize with this book because I'm a man. It's been 10 years since this book was published. I don't know if the current female college students will sympathize with it even if they read it (the content is for female students, but I don't know if the current female students will read this kind of book. I don't read books other than manga. Isn't it?).
In the last 10 years, Japanese society (world affairs) has changed. It is not Japan that the author would have envisioned, the gender equality ranking is 120th, the working poor is not resolved, the poverty rate of single mothers is rising, and in this corona disaster (what is said) Many people are wandering between life and death.
The author was a member of the Cabinet Office's "New Charter for the Declining Birthrate and Social Policy" at that time, but was the author's opinion adopted? There is no doubt that the "policy outline", whether or not it is hired, gives rise to today's situation.
Heisei Girls
I'm a conservative (?) Grandfather born in the Showa era, but I grew up with gender equality. When I entered the company and raised gender equality, it was a big existing system that stood in the way, and there was a backlash from women who thought they would be on my side (my way is). It may have been radical).
After that, the word gender became popular, and the word "sexual harassment" was born. And various "harassment" is born. Among them, I think that most of them were in the position of "harassing".
It was very uncomfortable. You have to always talk and act with your eyes in mind. I didn't think the job would go smoothly (I couldn't do my favorite drinking nucation anymore).
I wonder if all harassment was really created from the side of the vulnerable (not necessarily the minority [* 1]) who are harassed. I think there are things that the serious media thought about, and things that were made unscrupulous in "earning copies" (the new "~ Hara" was reported yesterday, but I forgot it already). ..
Heisei girls have been said to be "weak" since they were born. I think it was painful for that. And, at school, the boys I met in society were given preferential treatment just because they were boys, but I think they were not not as so-called "strong men".
I never felt strong because I wasn't strong and had a good face.
What is it like that there are constant reports that "women are vulnerable" and that reality does not change? I do not know. However, as a worker, I will understand the "feelings" of the weak. The Juvenile Law has been amended. I was weak, so I was scared of bad things (Yankees, Bosozoku, Hangure) since high school. I was a serious student, but their feelings of dropping out were familiar and I tried to think (I also wanted to drop out). But when I think about it now, I didn't understand it at all. I think you can't understand unless you keep thinking hard.
I just wrote an impression of a book that says "I can feel it even if I don't understand it." If you ask the author, this is also a fantasy. But what's wrong with having fantasy?
Is there a marital relationship?
The whole thing the author says is "economical". "There is a risk of 8 million yen more than an annual income of 4 million yen." I think it is natural that 2 million yen is more risky.
To prevent people from saying, "Housewife's happiness depends on her husband." Certainly, there aren't many matchmaking marriages right now. In an era when matchmaking marriage was commonplace, it may have been that "housewives' happiness depends on their husbands." In that sense, "housewife's happiness ..." will change as the form of marriage changes. But I now think that happiness depends on my partner. However, in all respects, the other person is not in his own way (unless he does domestic violence), and I don't think anyone is happy in all respects.
Love is blind. During love, everything may have a rosy time. However, even a family member (parent and child, brothers and sisters) does not know everything about the other person, and it is "fantasy" to know. It means that even if you can see it, you will not see it. It is the same as "believing (faith)". It is important to believe in people. It is a premise of "happiness", and it is "unavoidable" and "do not blame the other person" for being deceived, disillusioned, and becoming unhappy.
It is also necessary in the society in which we live now to always have some kind of doubt and not give up on seeing and thinking. But I can't come to a conclusion. "Give up while thinking." And I think it is important to secure the time for that. It takes time (“time”) to live happily.
"I don't like it, but I like it" "It's not all rosy, but I'm happy". I'm not a "perfect" person. Does the author think he is the perfect person (or is he aiming for the perfect person)?
What is lacking in this book is the "husband's point of view". No matter how much one chapter (although there are only 20 pages) is devoted to the men's roundtable discussion.
So the biggest drawback of this book is that it doesn't have a "love (male and female) perspective". I'm not telling you to give a love lecture separately. I don't think the woman in this book was married to a "dislike". Of course, there will be people who have been shotgun or have been married as a matter of course. But she must have thought this person was good (is this person okay?).
Of course, there may have been a calculation of the other party's annual income and social status. But if that was the main reason for getting married, it didn't matter what the other person's personality was. Well, let's set aside the reason for the marriage. The author seems to want a calculation. Isn't it a kind of utilitarianism?
Do you know the happiness of others?
In a society where women are weak, that may be a tactic. She wants to think that her "compassion" for the same woman makes her say that. Maybe it's because she sees the reality of women. But I can't tell if the author's (their) mothers were happy or unhappy, or if the authors and themselves were happy (or unhappy). .. I don't think I'm in that position. Even my wife, who has been with me for many years (not said to be divorced so far), thinks, "I'm sure I'm happy on one side and unhappy on the other side (many?)." I am. So is she happy or unhappy?
The author asks the woman interviewed about her "happiness." She apparently thinks she can quantify "happiness" and "unhappiness" (and says she's "high risk" if she doesn't get the numbers she wants). I think that our society today can quantify anything. Since the divorce rate is 36%, is "divorce a matter of course"? Isn't it natural that it is 20% [* 2]? Is 8 million more risky than 4 million annual income? I do not deny using numbers as a guide. The author can do "~~ committee" only because he knows a lot of numbers and trusts them. However, I think that it is the quantification that creates a lot of "unhappiness."
Divide your time, sell it, and turn it into money. Why is such a thing possible? "Possible" does not mean "people want". Rather, it is forced to do so.
As long as you think that money (quantification / quantification) determines a person's happiness / unhappiness (although I don't know how much), you are unhappy and the rich are happy. The rich also look at you and think so. You are unhappy because you are forever short of money. To be happy even a little, you have to think that you have more money than that person.
Society changes
Society changes faster than the author thinks. And people's thoughts are the same as the author thinks. ("Common sense of the common sense" (Kunio Yanagita) is also one of the reasons. I'm worried that it seems to be replacing something else. Mask and social distance. I hope this will not be a big blow.)
The change is neither linear nor heading anywhere.
In other words, it does not "evolve". Therefore, I can't help but hope for the happiness of tomorrow, the future, let alone the afterlife.
But both the author and you must be experiencing the rapid change (or no change) in society. They think they have changed but they haven't changed (believed), or they haven't changed but they think they have changed (believed).
The question is where to set the standard for change. When you set the reference for change to a number, it only puts a reference point somewhere. When asked, "Do I have to be the first? Is it the second?", "Is it the second?" And it continues forever. Therefore, the question to ask is not the first, second, etc., but "Do you really need a computer?" I'm sure Renho doesn't think he doesn't need a computer either. Even those who are critical of "coronavirus measures" do not ask the question "is there a new type of coronavirus?"
More and more "new species (although it is called a mutant strain)" and "new coronavirus" are being discovered. Still, the question "what is the new coronavirus?" Cannot be asked "for some reason."
"Amount" can be quantified. But "quality" cannot be quantified. Perhaps we must escape from the "curse of quantification" and regain quality, that is, nature.
[出演者(プロフィール)等]
白河/桃子
東京都生まれ。慶應大学文学部卒。少子化ジャーナリスト、作家、相模女子大学客員教授。内閣府「新たな少子化社会政策大綱」有識者委員。山田昌弘中央大教授とともに「婚活」を提唱
安倍首相の掲げる「女性が輝く日本」の実態は?
若い女性の中に"隠れ専業主婦願望"が広がっているという。
好転しない経済状態、幸せで豊かな自身の母親への憧れ……、
理由はさまざまだが、夫の収入だけで生活していくことが難しいと知りながら、キャリアを捨て家庭に何を望むのか?
女性の社会進出が叫ばれる今、専業主婦のリアルから見えてくる、
"フツウの幸せ"の大きな代償とは何か。
●著者からのコメント
女性活躍推進の今、なぜあえて専業主婦の本を出すのか?と多くの人に聞かれます。しかし、実際に20代女性社員、女子大生などの未婚層、ワーキングマザー、再就職したい専業主婦、パート主婦などを取材すると、「いつかは専業主婦」と「もと専業主婦」をあわせると、まだまだ日本は「専業主婦」が多数派の国なのだと思わざるを得ないからです。
なぜ女性たちは「一時は専業主婦になって、子育てに専念したい」と思うのか?
そもそも女性たちは「働きたいのか?」「働きたくないのか?」
専業主婦をめぐる議論が感情的になるのはなぜか?
専業主婦の二大リスクとは?
専業主婦が減ると少子化も解消するのか?
そして第三号被保険者問題など、今後の専業主婦の行方は?
当事者にももちろんですが、声を大にして言いたいのは、「お父さん、お母さん、あなたの娘はもう養ってくれる人には出会えません」ということ。
米国のハウスワイフ2・0現象から、最新の専業主婦の再就職事情まで、日本が本当に「女性が輝く社会」になるためにも、今向き合っておきたい「専業主婦」に焦点をあててみました。
若い女性の中に"隠れ専業主婦願望"が広がっているという。
好転しない経済状態、幸せで豊かな自身の母親への憧れ……、
理由はさまざまだが、夫の収入だけで生活していくことが難しいと知りながら、キャリアを捨て家庭に何を望むのか?
女性の社会進出が叫ばれる今、専業主婦のリアルから見えてくる、
"フツウの幸せ"の大きな代償とは何か。
●著者からのコメント
女性活躍推進の今、なぜあえて専業主婦の本を出すのか?と多くの人に聞かれます。しかし、実際に20代女性社員、女子大生などの未婚層、ワーキングマザー、再就職したい専業主婦、パート主婦などを取材すると、「いつかは専業主婦」と「もと専業主婦」をあわせると、まだまだ日本は「専業主婦」が多数派の国なのだと思わざるを得ないからです。
なぜ女性たちは「一時は専業主婦になって、子育てに専念したい」と思うのか?
そもそも女性たちは「働きたいのか?」「働きたくないのか?」
専業主婦をめぐる議論が感情的になるのはなぜか?
専業主婦の二大リスクとは?
専業主婦が減ると少子化も解消するのか?
そして第三号被保険者問題など、今後の専業主婦の行方は?
当事者にももちろんですが、声を大にして言いたいのは、「お父さん、お母さん、あなたの娘はもう養ってくれる人には出会えません」ということ。
米国のハウスワイフ2・0現象から、最新の専業主婦の再就職事情まで、日本が本当に「女性が輝く社会」になるためにも、今向き合っておきたい「専業主婦」に焦点をあててみました。
[1] 女性は明らかに少数者ではありません。人類の半分は女性です。労働者の解放が叫ばれて2世紀です。労働者は少なくとも先進国（資本主義諸国）に於いては、国民の大多数を占めています。
[2] 新型コロナの感染者数は「5000人」が緊急事態で「1000人」は緊急事態じゃないのでしょうか。その基準がこの2年の間でコロコロ変わってきていることを、何故かマスコミも評論家も専門家も人々も忘れています。不思議ですが。
