A step for women's rights...forward and backward

Good morning everyone,

You're going to finally need your long-johns, for a couple of days at least. Today and tomorrow are going to be a fair bit chillier than it has been so far this winter with highs of 9C and 10C and overnight lows of 4C. It'll slowly warm up through the end of the week and into the weekend and we will see temperatures climb back into the mid-teens by the end of the weekend. It's looking like we may see some rain on Monday, but it's a bit too far away to say with any certainty...

The courts struck down one very outdated law in Japan that banned women from remarrying for 6 months after a divorce (while men were allowed to remarry within 3 months). This law was created about 120 years when it was very difficult to determine the paternity of a child. It was illogical then (just because you're married doesn't mean the baby is yours) and downright sexist now, when technology can find out the baby's parents in a matter of minutes. I think this was an easy decision for the courts to make...although it's still a bit weird that the government feels a need to 'ban' people-men or women- from remarrying for any amount of time after they get divorced. Societal norms should do that, shouldn't it?

I don't know about you, but if I was in a unhappy marriage, the last thing I would want to do after getting divorced is to jump into another marriage within 100 days (that's the time both men and women must wait now to get remarried). I couldn't see me getting remarried within a year of getting divorced...so the ban of 100 days or 6 months wouldn't mean anything-but the fact that women and men had to wait longer periods should have been the easiest argument to make about the law being unconstitutional.

I mean, the government rewrote the constitution so they could send soldiers to war within a year and it's taken them since the 80s to strike down this law. Makes you wonder about what the government's real priorities are, doesn't it?

As for the law stating that married couples must share the same last name, I'm surprisingly with the courts on this one. No one is forcing women to take the man's name and many women who marry and keep working continue to use their maiden names at work anyway. It's not unconstitutional-there's no law that says women must take their husband's name-there are plenty of cases where men change their family names, so I'm cool with keeping the tradition of families having a single name.

What do you think of these two court decisions? I'm sure they're making headlines around the world...

Post a comment

Private comment