Serene state of mind

　　

A female president declared online that she doesn't want to hire young women because in spite of effort to train them, so many of them resign due to marriage and pregnancy.
This remark caused a lot of fuss.
If the advocate president were male, he would have been accused as a sexist.
But the controversial remark was by a female president, thus her opinion became a problem presentation about the reality how work and childbirth are incompatible for our nation.　
At the same time, I'd like to question the President whether she is willing to hire women whose children are already over ten years old or women who have no plan to have children from the beginning.
Compared to expectant mothers or younger women with small children to take care, they have less need for reduced working hour.
　At least, they won't leave the job by reason of childbirth.
　　Now that general laborers are granted to work until sixty-five, if workers get a job at early forties, they still have about twenty years to work.

Do employers question applicants at job interviews how they think of balancing work and family lives?
That should be fine, since some workers can require sensitivity to childcare and nursing family members.
But if they ask question only women, it's unfair. It's based on moss-headed men's belief that home is not men's matter.
Gender discrimination is illegal now, except for artistic or public moral necessity and when the organization intend to raise the parentage of women.
Nonetheless, old-fashioned employers exclude female workers shrewdly.
If those employers have no willing to hire women, it's better that they declare so from the beginning.
For young female students on job-hunting, it's a waste of time to apply for those companies.
While half of society members are women, too many companies and organizations still run their business on the assumption that only men are in this state, and bring our state current deadlock.

As is mentioned at the opening, those employers think that it's no use hiring and training young women who are to leave due to marriage and pregnancy.
Concluding at one bound, they expect their employees to be only organized laborers, and they frown on workers being family person and community members.
　They assume home as only women's matter.
　　They don't know that laborer men are also people who live in society and consumers as well -Is it fine to understand so?
Not only women but also men need to be careful if you have marriage, childcare, nursing, hobby or regional activities in your life plan.
In the end, they will end up in churning out pity elderlies who cannot belong in home and local community after retirement.
-No need to think about the distant future; those employers have made workers give up marriage and childbirth as part of their lives, leading to promote decline in births.
Facing current reality, do those moss-headed employers still cling to feudalistic labor throwaway system and contribute to decline of our state?
-I understand that not only employers are judged for responsibility, but it's for another time.

◆：Ready to place summery if asked