There is no question that the conventional labor force participation rate is a rather crude measure.
International comparisons using this indicator would have more meaning if the numbers were standardized in some way to reflect types of employment (permanent vs
contract) and hours (standard vs short). What this would do for the comparative standing of Japan is uncertain given that some other countries have significant levels of short hour, contract employment.

The comparison is complicated by structural and legal differences as well as the peculiarities of Japanese terminology. For example, "part time" does not necessarily mean short hours. Fixed term contract employment is not necessarily low pay or short hours.

Further, the fact that a large number of women in Japan are employed on short(er) hour, term contracts is not necessarily a sign of discrimination. It may be what the women prefer. One of the many failings of contemporary writing, especially foreign writing, on this subject is that the writers make their assertions without asking ordinary women what they want.

The common theme that Japan needs women to boost the GDP is just as much a case of making women agents of state policy as are such statements as the one in 2007 in which women were described as baby making machines.
Give birth to GDP! Give birth to babies! Neither line asks women what they want to do.

EHK