Who benefits from the training program that uses electrical stimulation to simulate menstrual pain?

Abstract

This paper examines the vested interests behind the "Menstrual Pain Experience Training for Male Managers" promoted by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. At first glance, it appears to be a beacon of mutual understanding, but behind the scenes, a structure emerges in which frontline managers support the program by paying what they call "costs" in order to score political points. This report sheds light on the risks inherent in this program and the identities of those who are truly paying for it out of their own pockets.

Keywords

Shifting responsibility, political performance, frontline burden, limits of empathy

Introduction

"If people understand the difficulties of menstrual pain, it will be easier for women to work." This training program for male managers using electrical stimulation devices embodies this wish. However, everything has a "cost" and a "reward." Who pays this tuition fee, known as "pain," and who benefits most as a result? This paper analyzes the organization's interests from a blunt perspective.

Analysis

1. Misunderstandings Caused by "Selling" Pain

The first thing to confront is the fact that the "temporary pain" caused by electrical stimulation and the "complex suffering" of menstruation, which lasts for several days, are different things.

This is like "just carrying a heavy load for one minute and feeling like you understand the hardships of someone who does heavy labor every day." The false sense of "understanding" based on a momentary experience can actually lead to disregarding the other person's true struggles.

At first glance, the solution of deepening understanding through experience seems ideal, but this is based on the optimistic assumption that "if we just share the pain, the problem will be solved." In reality, this simplistic understanding risks further indifference, leading to the belief that "they've already been sufficiently considerate, since they've gone through so much pain."

2. Who "Pays" and Who "Profits"?

When we look at this project as a "transaction," we need to clarify who is paying and who is profiting.

Government (Tokyo): By selling the public image of "advanced initiatives," they reap rewards in the form of approval ratings and political standing. They invest taxpayer money, not money directly from their own pockets.

Training companies and device manufacturers: Under the pretense of "deepening understanding," they earn a steady income from equipment rentals and instructor fees.

On-site managers: They are the ones who are most pressured out of their own pockets. They lose their time and labor to undergo training, and are burdened with additional work in the name of "consideration for their subordinates."

Government return (approval rating) = On-site managers' costs (work coordination and responsibility)

External diseconomies

Forcing others to shoulder the disadvantages and costs for their own benefit. For the benefit of "popularity," government officials essentially pass on the disadvantages of "coordination costs" to on-site managers.

3. The deception of trying to solve problems with "kindness"

Why are these "experiences" so popular? This is because fundamental solutions (such as increasing staff and creating a system that allows operations to continue even when someone is absent) would be prohibitively expensive.

This situation is similar to the owner of a struggling restaurant who preaches, "Let's all share the pain." While the problem could actually be solved by adding more staff, the owner is saving the organization money by shifting the blame to "personal consideration."

Simply shouting, "We need consideration," without providing the necessary resources (replacement personnel or budget) is nothing more than a government "passing the buck."

Conclusion

After analyzing this, I must conclude that this measure is a cost-effective political stunt disguised as "women's empowerment," a noble cause that is difficult for anyone to oppose.

While at first glance it may seem like an ideal solution, it is based on the mistaken assumption that human kindness is infinite—that "someone will be kind to you for free." The reality is that frontline managers are sacrificing their own reputations and time to provide "consideration," with the benefits flowing out to government and corporate image.

The actual solution = structural reform (budgetary allocation) < spiritualism (experiencing pain)

As long as this measure doesn't end with the satisfaction of sharing the "pain" and avoids discussion about who should bear the actual costs of providing such consideration, it will remain a device that only exhausts frontline workers.

12/27