Shin'yuu no Furin Aite wa, Otto deshita - Vol. 2 Ch. 12

[Jatopian]

They need to have a proper talk about responsibility and division thereof, but it seems like they're going to go about it in an unhealthy way, if it happens at all.

 

[Friendly-Sentence710]

Based TL note

 

[fgsfdss]

You know the SL is good when there's an essay in the TL notes.
Turns out it's Nosebleed. Sasuga.

 

[Saybah]

i bet shes overthinking it

Going by the manga’s direction, she probably isn’t wrong in wanting a divorce, but this chapter portrays her decision as somewhat hasty and emotional, or at least it gives that impression.

Things like him not caring about household responsibilities could have been talked through, but once you add possible cheating into the mix, it makes sense why she’s so angry.

Ideally, she should have spoken first to a counselor or an expert. I guess Momoka counts as an expert, but since she’s also a possible suspect, that complicates things.

 

[orangerain7734]

Yes, you need evidence in the case of abuse too.

If is a flawed system. That's why as countries modernized, they implemented no-fault divorces, where you can get divorced without having to prove wrongdoing. Unfortunately Japan has never implemented this.

For abuse, your evidence can be more things: injuries, doctors reports of said I juries, and third parties testemonies. Doesn't necessarily have to be a recording of you being abused.

Ultimately it's a trial, anything goes as long as you can convince a judge that your divorce is justified.



Definitely would be preferable if there was at least the option of no-fault, though.

Not that no-fault divorces are perfect solutions in themselves, either. This could mean that even if there were no signs of abuse or dissatisfaction from either spouse, one could still file the divorce and take half of the money and resources with them, even if some of them were the other's to begin with.

It's especially how bad that is in America with women taking initiative most of the time that men don't bother pursuing them anymore with that big of a risk ahead of them in their marriage.

 

[Nosebleed]

Not that no-fault divorces are perfect solutions in themselves, either. This could mean that even if there were no signs of abuse or dissatisfaction from either spouse, one could still file the divorce and take half of the money and resources with them, even if some of them were the other's to begin with.

It's especially how bad that is in America with women taking initiative most of the time that men don't bother pursuing them anymore with that big of a risk ahead of them in their marriage.

None of that makes no-fault divorces a bad thing.

No-fault just means you aren't stuck in a marriage forever, you can actually leave without having to prove your spouse beats you up or something. Everyone should absolutely have the right to leave a relationship or marriage for any reason. This isn't the medieval times.

Asset division is still a thing regardless of no-fault. When you're married, you share certain assets, and when you get divorced, you have to divide them. That's the nature of the beast.

If you don't want to split assets, sign a prenup stating what's yours. Then no matter what your spouse does you'll always keep them. It's not that complicated. Many men and women do this already and lead happy marriages.

 

[MrMeh]

None of that makes no-fault divorces a bad thing.

No-fault just means you aren't stuck in a marriage forever, you can actually leave without having to prove your spouse beats you up or something.

Asset division is still a thing even without no-fault divorces. If you don't want to split certain assets, sign a prenup.

I think what he's saying is that no-fault divorce increases the frivolous nature of modern marriage which makes it easier for someone to be cheated out of their assets.
The classic marry them for their money and divorce them trope is easier to pull off when no-fault is a thing.
And thus, given the general consensus is that in most divorce cases the ones losing assets are men, men collectively aren't pursuing relationships anymore.
Therefore it is a flaw with the policy but instead of an individualistic one it's on a societal level.

Prenup

I get the impression there's a social sigma against men for signing a prenup, not to mention it makes you lose your appetite for marriage in my case makes it less pure, loving etc.

One could also say that, marriages that would have never occurred do, essentially creating a self-feeding policy.

I find modern law to be poor taste, people have become less accountable for choosing the right partner, it incentivises jumping into relationships and sows mistrust of our partners.
Our attitude to relationships has got so bad I honestly think that if divorce were abolished tomorrow most people would just never get married as the risks would be seen as too great and frankly that probably tells them more about the relationships they're pursuing.
Of course this can't be all blamed on a change of system but it hasn't helped.

It's up to you to decide whether the trade off is worth it as with all law, utopia is impossible after all.

 

[Vikingix]

You're assuming I was talking about women only, both men and women can take this role.

Being a housewife/househusband is an incredibly tough job and should be commended.
It makes sense that if one person isn't working they would handle the house more, this isn't conservative it's pragmatic.
Not to mention you get very valuable things you just don't get when both partners are working such as market research on the best place to buy things and the aforementioned handyman work.

Women also have the right to CHOOSE not to have a career and be a housewife.
It's also misogynist to assume all women should work.

Yeah the husband is a dumbass here but at the same time she is working less so you would expect her to do a little bit more.
However, as you say it's past that margin.

Let's say I understood that it could be both men and women. Theoritically.
But, unfortunatly, that's what I said in reality, 99% of the time, it's the woman who is stucked in it.
And not because she chosed it, just because she had absolutely no choice, that path was settled to her.

Now if a woman love to manage the house and really wants to do that, of course she can. And a man as well. But it's a question of CHOICE.

And when we say choice, it means during all her youth she understood that she had that choice. Not that she was educated from the beginning to become a housewife. Cause, of course, with such an education, she'll likely "choose" that.

 

[Machaka22]

She finally realize how heterosexual couple and marriage is such a trap and a scam to women.

 

[MrMeh]

Let's say I understood that it could be both men and women. Theoritically.
But, unfortunatly, that's what I said in reality, 99% of the time, it's the woman who is stucked in it.
And not because she chosed it, just because she had absolutely no choice, that path was settled to her.

Now if a woman love to manage the house and really wants to do that, of course she can. And a man as well. But it's a question of CHOICE.

And when we say choice, it means during all her youth she understood that she had that choice. Not that she was educated from the beginning to become a housewife. Cause, of course, with such an education, she'll likely "choose" that.

I think you have a very resentful and misunderstood perspective of history.
I do not believe in notions of mass-indoctrination of women, nor the technocratic view that if someone is less educated they have weaker critical thinking skills nor less valuable opinions.
I see this as patronising to the women of the past and insulting to the character of the men who loved them.

Not that education was typically split in the western world along gender lines, it was primarily class related, as was basically everything from home ownership to voting.

No, this is a matter of preference, working has only recently become favourable to women.
In the past most roles involved immense physical strain and serious risk to life.
Who'd take such a role when they didn't have to?
That isn't to say that managing the home was easy, it very much wasn't, but it was preferable.

As mechanisation grew, so did women's involvement in industry and in some areas dominated.
Typewriting being an example where women were the majority.

 

[Vikingix]

Sorry again, but all of that is really a typical male point of view.

And you misunderstood something. When we talk about education, it's not about less education (while it's actually also true women had less chance, but that's another subject).
It's that, a lot of women were educated from their birth to become housewife, and nothing else. And some still are.
It's not about intelligence. Just that, when your whole life has prepared you to become a housewife, of course there are chances that will be your natural choice. But that wasn't really a choice actually, just the result of everything you've been told from the beginning.

Btw, now that you mentionned typewriting which was opened for women, could you explain why that were mostly women doing that, while men are able to do it as well ? Why are secretaries and assistants generally women as well (greatly underated jobs btw)

 

[MrMeh]

Sorry again, but all of that is really a typical male point of view.

And you misunderstood something. When we talk about education, it's not about less education (while it's actually also true women had less chance, but that's another subject).
It's that, a lot of women were educated from their birth to become housewife, and nothing else. And some still are.
It's not about intelligence. Just that, when your whole life has prepared you to become a housewife, of course there are chances that will be your natural choice. But that wasn't really a choice actually, just the result of everything you've been told from the beginning.

Btw, now that you mentionned typewriting which was opened for women, could you explain why that were mostly women doing that, while men are able to do it as well ? Why are secretaries and assistants generally women as well (greatly underated jobs btw)

I understood what you meant on education, I just disregarded it as I don't agree that was the case in any major significance.
I don't believe women were so naive as to think their prospects were limited just because they were trained in a skill set early on.
I think they would have pondered other routes of life but given most people's education was basically nothing, the only jobs available to them would have got them killed, hurt or where they physically can't compete with a man.

Thus it's not really a matter of prejudice but general prospects given most people were poor and most jobs weren't appealing.
Men on the other hand didn't have a choice, the concept of the house husband didn't exist back then.
But they didn't mind that, men were willing to tough it out and die for their families.

typewriting, why dominated by women?

It was more suited to their preference and skillset.
It's a highly dexterous job which was well suited to the skills of women at the time.
It also didn't put them at risk of being turned into meat paste by heavy machinery.

Men likely couldn't pivot as easily into dexterous roles when they'd built up muscular hands.
(Strength is always at the sacrifice of flexibility, always do stretches after exercising.)
Nor would want to go through the effort of having a second apprenticeship.

Why are secretaries and assistants generally women as well (greatly underated jobs btw)

Same reasons as typewriting.
Secretaries and assistant jobs are underrated because they don't hold the spotlight.
I've never thought of it as a gender thing and see such as the same reason why other jobs are underrated.

 

[hawk7034]

Huh, Japan doesn't have single party divorce. Explains why that website of housewives wishing death (or actively trying to poison them) on their spouse is a thing.

 

[EchoGirl]

Thanks

At least she stood up about the body wash but other than basic shampoo you'd think they'd have their own separate ones

i bet shes overthinking it

I wonder if the author would make 50 chapters of this kinda manga just to troll ppl

I know lots of folk in their 20s that don't know how to cook or clean. Usually it is because their parents always did for them even up to age 18 or they had a housekeeper that handled it.

i mean there's the stereotype of men not helping out but other than
him going to an all boys school or raised in some upper rich class family with maids or whatever, kids as young as elementary students learn how to cook basic stuff

Although these days i wouldn't be surprised if a 711 bento is like 5x as better as whatever usual gas station stuff available in america lol (there was even a whole foodie jdrama live action titled something like "Would you like your bento heated up" or something like that that was supposed to be a romance? didn't watch it lol)

 

[AnimuVsMango]

Bro is about to find out about "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

Really interesting postscript about divorce procedures in Japan, thanks for the context. I do wonder about a couple of things, though. Like if screenshots don't count as "evidence of a physical relationship", then what the hell are you supposed to do? Usually people who have an affair aren't directly texting each other like "Wow the sexual intercourse we had at X hotel on this date was so good!" Are you supposed to kick in their door and film them going at it or something? On top of that, if such evidence is required, how does that play with laws about the legal acquisition of evidence? Usually people in an affair don't just hand you over the proof with consent, and Japan has some pretty strict privacy laws.

 

[FiddlePop]

I now find the author comments more interesting than the chapters