Posted on 10/14/2022 6:55:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Japanese cabinet ministers on Friday (Oct 14) approved the scrapping of a law that stipulates women pregnant at the time of a divorce must wait 100 days before marrying again.
The law, in place for more than a century, does not apply to men and was originally intended as a way to aid the identification of the father who is financially responsible for a newborn baby.
Critics have campaigned for a withdrawal of the 1896 law - which had banned remarriage for six months until being revised in 2016 - calling it outdated and discriminatory. The change will also remove a rule that grants parents the right to "discipline children to whatever necessary extent".
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
They should use DNA testing as part of the law. I didn’t click so maybe they do.
I know in some states if you’re married the baby is the husbands no matter what. Even if DNA says otherwise...which is BS.
謙治さん、あなたは父親ですよ！
That’s standard common law that predates science. Back when children were valued farm labor, it prevented wealthy men with no sons from poaching the sons of poor men.
I suspect that, like in most other countries, the putative father is not allowed to demand a DNA test of the newborn. After all: There are feminists in Japan, too!
Allowing women to conceal the true paternity and thus maintain a smokescreen around their promiscuity is just another tool in the feminist toolbox.
Regards,
What do you mean by "poaching?"
High-status men routinely impregnated the wives of low-status men. And those high-status men were happy to allow the cuckolded low-status husbands to bear the cost of raising those boys.
Sons were economically valuable (and status-raising) only if the high-status man could openly acknowledge them and successfully integrate them into his household and put them to work in the fields. Ripping the boys they had sired out of the (superficially) stable households of low-status men wouldn't have worked without taking the mothers, too - but that would have totally disrupted the socio-economic fabric of societies where harem-formation was not fostered.
So instead, the high-status men gained nothing economically, or in increased social capital. Rather, they had to content themselves with the knowledge that dozens of low-status men were breaking their backs to put bread on the table for the low-status women they had impregnated and for the sons they had sired.
Regards,
If you think a sonless farmers wouldn’t poach another farmer’s son in a heartbeat by claiming to have slept with his wife then you need to think harder. Especially when they got to a working age of seven or so.
Since there was no way to prove paternity they followed a common sense rule that children belonged to the husband, not the interloper. It also meant your wife couldn’t leave you and take the the kids, too.
Children weren’t a burden back then, they were a resource.
Your original statement - on which I was commenting - referred to wealthy men "poaching" the sons of poor.
Now you are "moving the goal posts" of our discussion and referring to equal-status "farmers." Deceitful!
Even this new scenario of yours (which I am likewise willing to discuss) ignores several problems:
1. How would the "sonless" farmer prove his claim? You mention waiting until the sons attained a "working age" of 7 or so. Waiting that long makes it even more difficult to prove paternity. "Why didn't you come forward seven years ago, when you had the chance?!"
2. Besides the specific circumstances of the case now being lost in the mists of time, the claimant is now also "on the hook" for back child support for the past seven years!
3. The claimant "outs" himself as an adulterer! In the era we are talking about, that would have been not only an ecclesiastical crime - it would have also carried secular penalties!
4. Your scenario ignores the wishes of the other parties in the dispute: Many a boy might strongly object to being labelled a bastard and "coopted" into another household in this fashion. The mother would, in all likelihood, also object to being labelled a strumpet / adulteress. By "moving the goal posts" as you have and redefining the scenario to involve equal, you have made it even less plausible. A nobleman might get away with "poaching" sons in this way (though I still see problems), but social equals would have it much, much harder!
In short: I suppose that in some sort of "alternate reality" / "counterfactual history," such a scenario could be plausible - but not in any Western society we know.
Regards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.