U.N. body again urges Japan to allow separate surnames for couples

U.N. body again urges Japan to allow separate surnames for couples

The requirement is stipulated in Article 750 of the current Civil Code. The provision dates back over a century to the prewar Civil Code

UN forgot that in Japan everything will take centuries to change, even from polls it shows that majority Japanese support separate surnames.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/10/68005b11e303-focus-japan-election-puts-couples-right-to-choose-surname-in-spotlight.html

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240916/p2g/00m/0na/005000c

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15356597

If the people really want it they will elect more leaders who include that on their platform

Let them mind their own business. There are a lot more urgent matters the UN should use its efforts and resources for.

UN forgot that in Japan everything will take centuries to change

True.

The One World Government wants to tell Japan what to do. Japan decided no and has stuck to their guns. Suck it globalists.

Focus on fixing the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and leave Japan alone!

The UN should just mind their own business!

Do they know the meaning of sovereignty?

Like every independent country can do as it pleases.

Or, are they implying that Japan must comply or else?

Maybe this might play a small part in the birthrate decline, the world slowly changes and it is either adapt or cease to exist

The United Nations does nothing but sucks up funds, pushing absurd globalist agendas while ignoring real issues. Instead of meddling in family names and telling couples they need separate surnames - something that has no bearing on global well-being - maybe they should focus on holding the WEF and WHO accountable for the massive failures surrounding a certain mRNA vaccine, lockdowns, and the damage they inflicted on economies worldwide.

Countless people are still suffering from those decisions, and the U.N. is wasting time on trivial social engineering projects instead of addressing the actually important issues. The U.N. should prioritize accountability and solutions for real crises rather than trying to impose woke policies on private lives.

I suggest that the UN focus on other issues that are sizzling across the globe and leave Japan alone.

No Thank You, Japan will manage it's affairs as it sees fit, so stay out of it UN.

There are many couples with separate family names in Japan. I work with some.

Countless people are still suffering from those decisions, and the U.N. is wasting time on trivial social engineering projects instead of addressing the actually important issues. The U.N. should prioritize accountability and solutions for real crises rather than trying to impose woke policies on private lives.

What is "woke" about having a different last name? Does that mean being a foreign national in Japan is "woke" too as well as trying to learn a different language or do anything at all that is different than the cultural norm?

Well "Ken", allow me to explain it to you - what's woke here isn’t simply having a different last name; it’s the constant push by elites and global organizations to dismantle cultural traditions under the guise of “progress.”

It’s about pushing for changes that most people never asked for and trying to make people feel backward for valuing heritage and family unity.

This isn’t about individuality or learning new languages; it’s about top-down social engineering that forces “diversity” while undermining what actually holds societies together.

Real progress respects cultural roots and family values - values that shouldn’t be rewritten just to fit a globalist agenda or cater to ideological trends.

This is ridiculous on so many levels. We have a war in Europe, war in the ME and China threatening Taiwan, and the UN spends time and money to stick their nose into a sovereign country's domestic legal structure? If nothing, it proves how the UN wastes it's funds on useless issues. Which is all the more ridiculous as Japan is the third largest contributor to the UN.

Perhaps the UN would like to pay for the massive change that would be needed to Japan's long standing Koseki system in order to comply with their suggestion.

Well "Ken", allow me to explain it to you - what's woke here isn’t simply having a different last name; it’s the constant push by elites and global organizations to dismantle cultural traditions under the guise of “progress.”

Firstly you don't understand what "woke" means, you are using the Twitter definition which categorizes everything you don't understand into the same box you use when you call something "woke"

Real progress respects cultural roots and family values - values that shouldn’t be rewritten just to fit a globalist agenda or cater to ideological trends

And secondly nobody is being forced to do anything. If the family WANTS to have different last names they can. There is no BS throwing away values, nobody said men can no longer pass down last names, nobody said women can no longer change their last names. It is making a new option that didn't really exist.

Why it matters so much to people who would never be affected by it is something I don't understand? You're not about to marry a woman who is on the fence about changing her last name, you're not a woman who is being discriminated against. Why do you use so much energy to care in such a negative way about something that has no relation to you?

This is ridiculous on so many levels. We have a war in Europe, war in the ME and China threatening Taiwan, and the UN spends time and money to stick their nose into a sovereign country's domestic legal structure? If nothing, it proves how the UN wastes it's funds on useless issues. Which is all the more ridiculous as Japan is the third largest contributor to the UN.

The UN is not 1 person, they have different branches, sections and people. And perhaps it is important because of how much Japan contributes

Firstly you don't understand what "woke" means, you are using the Twitter definition which categorizes everything you don't understand into the same box you use when you call something "woke"

You know exactly what woke is: it's an ideology that pushes progressive agendas at the expense of traditional values, personal freedoms, and national identity. An attempt to impose forced political correctness on society, rewriting history, silencing opposing views, and prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion over merit, individual rights, or cultural heritage. They're agendas driven by elites and globalist institutions that promote "social justice" causes, not to empower people but to gain control, destabilize cultural foundations, and erode core societal values.

Why it matters so much to people who would never be affected by it is something I don't understand? You're not about to marry a woman who is on the fence about changing her last name, you're not a woman who is being discriminated against. Why do you use so much energy to care in such a negative way about something that has no relation to you?

This isn’t about “thinking about myself”- which would be the height of selfishness - it’s about preserving the family values and traditions that strengthen society as a whole, which I care about deeply. When globalist institutions push for things like this, it’s more than a personal choice; it’s an agenda chipping away at family unity. These changes affect everyone by undermining the shared customs that bind us together. Caring about this isn’t selfish - on the contrary, it’s about defending a foundation that’s bigger than any one individual (me or you), for the sake of future generations who deserve to inherit strong, rooted traditions - not social experiments.

. . . family cohesiveness may work better when family members see themselves as being of the same family group; hence, same family name . . . . different names may work toward divisiveness . . . .

You know exactly what woke is: it's an ideology that pushes progressive agendas at the expense of traditional values, personal freedoms, and national identity. An attempt to impose forced political correctness on society, rewriting history, silencing opposing views, and prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion over merit, individual rights, or cultural heritage. They're agendas driven by elites and globalist institutions that promote "social justice" causes, not to empower people but to gain control, destabilize cultural foundations, and erode core societal values.

You're only half right, the way you describe it is very weaponized if anything. And if anything was about preserving family values there wouldn't be any foreigners in Japan as you know in the past things were more different so it is a be careful what you wish for sort of thing. As well as if you don't keep up with how the world changes you and your descendants won't survive. The declining birthrate is a big problem and has more of a critical impact than what a persons last name may be. If any issue that is a more important issue that an unaffected bystander should focus on. Hence why to me it seems less about perseverance of a culture that isn't yours and ,more like an excuse to try to keep women in check.

Wait? Isn't this already a thing? Or is the rule different for Japanese women who marry foreign men?

There is some cruelty going on here, but I don't think it's coming from the UN.

Japanese companies, families, and society ( nationalist ) don't want your family name to exist within public record.

A lot of happy foreign men marry these women and understand NOTHING about the significance of the "Koseki". That document means a lot more than most here understand. The weight is real.

KenToday  10:11 am JST

This is ridiculous on so many levels. We have a war in Europe, war in the ME and China threatening Taiwan, and the UN spends time and money to stick their nose into a sovereign country's domestic legal structure? If nothing, it proves how the UN wastes it's funds on useless issues. Which is all the more ridiculous as Japan is the third largest contributor to the UN.

The UN is not 1 person, they have different branches, sections and people.

No kidding. But it all emanates out of the same budget.

And perhaps it is important because of how much Japan contribute*

What does that even mean? China is the second largest contributor to the UN but you don't see them making an issue out of their treatment of the Uighur popoulation.

What business is it of the UN?

It was a devastating mistake for the Japanese people that the government ratified the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The Committee's proposal interferes with Japanese domestic policy because most Japanese wish the same surname after the marriage. The UN intends to force nations to abolish their cultures and traditions whose value systems differ. The UN wants to establish the international community that communists used to hope to build. Under such a world, people hold the same value perspective, and forget their own nationalities. The Japanese government should withdraw from the Committee and reject to ratify the Committee.

Hence why to me it seems less about perseverance of a culture that isn't yours and ,more like an excuse to try to keep women in check.

Is that a male feminist assertion - assuming anyone who cares about tradition just wants to “keep women in check”? This isn’t about control; it’s about preserving values that create strong families and stable communities, something male feminists seem too spineless to understand.

Instead of constantly pandering, maybe try respecting the values that have held societies together for hundreds of generations in an uninterrupted procession.

Or were they all wrong and you're suddenly right?

What does that even mean? China is the second largest contributor to the UN but you don't see them making an issue out of their treatment of the Uighur popoulation.

Are we going to pretend that China won't get butthurt and hold a grudge if asked about that, we already know they are hopeless when it comes to change unless it is the CCP trying to claim territory they don't own

*Is that a male feminist assertion - assuming anyone who cares about tradition just wants to “keep women in check”? This isn’t about control; it’s about preserving values that create strong families and stable communities, something male feminists seem too spineless to understand.*

Is that your go to when you couldn't think of anything better to say? I'm just culturally aware as to why dudes who aren't affected by this are pretending like all of a sudden it's important. Sometimes values are meant to be adjusted, need I remind you yet again interracial relationships and marriages used to be forbidden but you were all for that change or little by little non Japanese residents in Japan are getting better rights over time or would you prefer to always be an outsider who doesn't get any polite hospitality?

tradition is important, koseki is recognized by most couples, is it he names at marriage that is important or the naming of the offspring, I believe the naming/ nationality? of the offspring is already a UN recognized right. My now not so little guy, does not have the burden of my western family name. thankfully, Parents choice.

The UN should stick to indoctrinating Palestinian children with a hatred of the Jews and leave Japan alone

It has nothing to do with being "woke" or with national sovereignty. Forcing couples to share the same surname is a way for the government to continue using the koseki system, which itself makes discrimination possible, for example against burakumin or unwed mothers.

The UN doesn't want to dismantle the Japanese government. It just wants Japan to give its citizens the basic rights they deserve.

the koseki system, which itself makes discrimination possible, for example against burakumin or unwed mothers.

"burakumin" have nothing to do with the koseki system and besides most Japanese don't even know what "burakumin" means anymore. It's an outdated term only kept alive by expats and foreign otaku who want to chide Japan about their xenophobia or racism. Single mothers can register their children in the koseki. Foreign mothers can't...unless married to a Japanese. Koseki registration bestows citizenship upon an individual, which is why unwed foreign mothers are not permitted to register their children. Unwed Japanese mothers most certainly can.

It's certainly an archaic law that is discriminatory towards women. But the U.N. (an almost meaningless organization today) should stay out of Japan's business in this matter.

well said Jay.

PC must end together with woke.

Others telling Japan what Japan needs to do to become part of the 21st century and stop being dead last in gender equality will only cement opposition from the old men in power who say it's an internal issue and chide the UN, saying they don't need to recognize it (but will then turn around and ask for UNESCO certification for everything under the Rising Sun).

Its not always the wife that has to change her surname. Gendo Ikari in "Neon Genesis Evangelion" adopted his wife's surname.

I know a male relative of my Japanese wife, who did not like his surname and when he married, he took over the surname of his wife.

The Japanese law does not single out the female and says it is the woman who must change her surname, the newlywed couple has a choice. How is this 'discrimination of women'?

Our two daughters had no problem about that anyway, they changed to the surname of their husband.

A female employee in the company where I was working took over the surname of the husband, but as she was well-known for many customers since years she just continued to use her maiden name for her work in the office.

The only complaint I know so far is that it is really a lot of paperwork in Japan to change the surname after marriage (and also again after divorce), it's a hassle, time-consuming, it's about taxes, health insurance, passport, driving license, banking accounts and so on.

I

John Kennedy-

What business is it of the UN?

To be honest, not much.

On the other side of the coin, it is also none of the UNs business to bestow "world heritage" labels on places, "intangible assets" etc. That stuff also needs to go.

Please, UN - focus on important things, such as stopping nations like Russia from invading sovereign nations and killing women and children.

The UN should take its nose out of other countries internal affairs.

old men in power who say it's an internal issue and chide the UN, saying they don't need to recognize it (but will then turn around and ask for UNESCO certification for everything under the Rising Sun).

Sure, I'd like an advertising company to help me market my product.

That doesn't mean I want them to tell me how to run my family.

I'm for personal freedom to decide without govt intervention. Seems like intervention all around from the UN and J-Govt happening here.

Any man who thinks "he runs the family" is confused or might not wake up 1 morning.

Any man who thinks "he runs the family" is confused or might not wake up 1 morning.

True...In Japan, the woman runs the family. I concede that this is the defacto situation in most Japanese households. Women rule the social world.

Allow me to rephrase that. "I don't want them to tell my wife how to run our family."

True...In Japan, the woman runs the family. 

In the same way an administrator runs a department or an office, a completely different thing from actually ruling over it with their own authority.

In the same way an administrator runs a department or an office, a completely different thing from actually ruling over it with their own authority.

Wrong, in most Japanese households it’s the woman who not only controls the purse strings, but makes all the major decisions including how much allowance the man receives. The man is reduced to a 15 year old boy who receives an allowance and takes his cues from the head of the household, who is the one that makes all the major decisions regarding the family including where and how the children will be educated, major purchases such as homes, cars, washing machines, big screen TVs, pets etc. The woman is not simply an administrator she makes the decisions. This may not be true of your home but it is for the majority of Japanese households.

Wrong, in most Japanese households it’s the woman who not only controls the purse strings, but makes all the major decisions including how much allowance the man receives. 

You keep repeating this claim without ever addressing the obvious way this is not true, which is the terribly simple and even automatic way anyone can have part of their salary deposited into another account making this easily avoided. When any husband can leave out of his main bank account any amount he can get away the "allowance" is just an extra. It also fails to address completely the fact that any actual owner of a company needs to fulfill the needs of that company if he wants to keep it, even if that means not living in luxury, that would not make the administrator the owner.

The woman is not simply an administrator she makes the decisions

Of course she is, if not she would be the one deciding what job the husband would take or not, or if he was the one taking care of the house so she can make more money, this is still the exception and not the rule in Japan where the woman is "allowed" to simply administer the house without having significant input over how to get the money she administers.

This is more and more clear the more money the husband makes, that comes with more and more freedom to expend that extra money as he wants, including having regular attendance to places like kyabakura or even having mistresses and illegitimate children, That is a lot more power than what the administrator of the household has.

I have ZERO confusing in my house who runs everything. It isn't me, though in public she let's me act like it is, most of the time. ;)

anyone can have part of their salary deposited into another account making this easily avoided

Anyone who has to sneakily keep a bank account on the side most certainly is NOT in charge of the household.

 she would be the one deciding what job the husband would take or not, 

She decides which mule to tether, often based on how much bacon that mule can bring home…the mule gets a carrot, she gets the bacon

the woman is "allowed" to simply administer the house without having significant input over how to get the money she administers.

How to get the money is of no issue. The mule hands over all the household banking access and receives an allowance like a 15 year old boy…and like a 15 year old boy has to sneak any extra money above and beyond his paltry allowance…

This is the state in the majority of Japanese households where women rule the roost

theFuToday  10:36 am JST

I have ZERO confusing in my house who runs everything. It isn't me, though in public she lets me act like it is, most of the time.

If you live in Japan and your wife is Japanese then you are among the majority

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Anyone who has to sneakily keep a bank account on the side most certainly is NOT in charge of the household.

So you recognize this completely destroy the only argument you have made about the issue, but now move the goalposts to what you personally consider is to be in charge?

That changes nothing, in Japan women are treated as household administrators and they can't even restrict the flow of money as you repeatedly misrepresent, that means they are not ruling anything.

She decides which mule to tether, often based on how much bacon that mule can bring home…the mule gets a carrot, she gets the bacon

As you already recognized by not challenging the terribly easy way to go around this imaginary constrain this is not the case. In Japan the husband is the owner of the household and the wife is "allowed" the privilege of doing all the work of maintaining it and administrating it and this is seen as their responsibility and obligation, no matter if she wants to do it or not.

How to get the money is of no issue. 

It is the only important issue, as it was very easy to prove there is no need to give "all" the banding access, so the husband can get as much allowance as he can get away with as long as the administration of the household can be done by the wife, and the more he has the more freedom for any of the extra money, including having extra households which in Japan is seen as a sign of affluence. Wives can't decide that their husbands should be better with less money and responsibilities even if they fully believe that, meanwhile the husband has the cultural freedom to do as he pleases as long as he can finance it.

There's splendid family registration system only in Japan. It simplifies proving each person's credibility, story of claims and liabilities, mortgage, etc. When the questionnaire is done by 3 categories there, the result becomes as follows; 1) same surname as ever: under 30%, 2) same surname with enabling one's former name use: over 40%, 3) separate surname: under 30%. It means those who want to use one's former name are divided into 2 types, ones who want to get the reputation, feat and so on of premarital work and the others who want to abolish above-mentioned family registration system.

Besides, when considering separate surname, we must consider children's issue that they can't choose own surname but get to hate own one and want to change to the other or are suspected among friends, etc.

So you recognize this completely destroy the only argument you have made about the issue, 

No, it highlights the fact that men are not in charge of money in their own household...so have to have a clandestine way to get money they otherwise can't.

Women rule the household. This is a well-known de facto arrangement in the homes of the Japanese.

To imagine otherwise would be similar to imagining that 10-25 year old males are just as susceptible to a fatal outcome from Covid as those 65 and older. Your imagination is boundless...Your grasp of reality...is without bounds

No, it highlights the fact that men are not in charge of money in their own household...so have to have a clandestine way to get money they otherwise can't.

Are not in charge because it represents a chore to administer it so they impose that unrewarded task on their wives, meanwhile they are free to enjoy as much money as they can get away with (that does not make the management of the house impossible) without any difficulty.

Women rule the household

Still not, only administer it, you have been unable to argue how the multiple menial taks involved are somehow proof they are in power when in reality they are being left with no choice on the matter, they have to do it because the culture say they must.

To imagine otherwise would be similar to imagining that 10-25 year old males are just as susceptible to a fatal outcome from Covid as those 65 and older. 

No imagination, it was very easy to prove this is the case, men are allowed to spend any money not necessary to maintain their households, even sustaining secondary households is culturally accepted as long as they get enough money. That is undeniable proof of who is actually in power, the same as when you demonstrated that for children vaccination reduces many times the risk of death.

ZaphodOct. 30  02:42 pm JST

The UN should take its nose out of other countries internal affairs.

They're not separate countries. I think the UN can give any advice it wants to nations that opt to join it and purport to uphold its values.

men are allowed to spend any money not necessary to maintain their households,

Men are allowed to spend their allowance...the sum of which is determined by their wives

Even sustaining secondary households is culturally accepted as long as they get enough money.

Is it? If you can find 500 people doing so among a population of 125 million, is that trait representative of the social mores in Japan? Or is how the majority behave more indicitive of what is socially acceptable in Japan?

I think the latter is more representative of the de facto social mores in Japan. And that includes the fact that women rule the household. Japanese men understand that. Most Japanese concede that. It's only those in the ex-pat crowd who like to pretend that's not true.

I think the UN can give any advice it wants to nations that opt to join it and purport to uphold its values.

> The United Nations (UN) has a policy of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of countries, as stated in Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter. This means that the UN is not authorized to intervene in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of any state

Men are allowed to spend their allowance...the sum of which is determined by their wives

No, that was already demonstrated to be just a wrong belief you had. Men can spend as much as they can get away simply by having a portion of their salary deposited elsewhere. That you personally don't do it or did not knew this can be done is no argument to prove it can't be done, it is actually quite easy.

Is it? If you can find 500 people doing so among a population of 125 million, is that trait representative of the social mores in Japan? 

500 people thinking that is understandable that big successful men have mistresses and illegitimate children precisely because of their success? sorry but you are wrong by several orders of magnitude. It is not that only the elite do it, but that a lot of the population tend to think of this as a normal consequence of being successful, that is what makes it socially accepted, which of course makes it obvious that the role of the wife is still much below than the husband. People accept this, if the woman "ruled" as you mistakenly believe this would be unacceptable and as scandalous as a successful woman having several households.

Once again it has been terribly easy to debunks terribly simplistic personal opinions with arguments that anybody could have thought of just by seeing how society treats women in Japan.

This means that the UN is not authorized to intervene in matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of any state

Which is why they did not order Japan to do anything, urging Japan to act accordingly to what its own government expressed to aim for about gender equality is not intervention by any reasonable use of the word.

A U.N. rights watchdog on Tuesday once again urged Japan to review its requirement for married couples to share a surname while calling for an amendment of the male-only imperial succession law 

> urging Japan to act accordingly to what its own government expressed to aim for about gender equality is not intervention by any reasonable use of the word.

Meddling in Japan's succession law is beyond the U.N.'s purview, as such they should remain quiet about matters not concerning them.

Meddling in Japan's succession law is beyond the U.N.'s purview, as such they should remain quiet about matters not concerning them.

The UN is not meddling, they are just urging Japan to be consistent with what they government already declared to be a priority. This is an issue that is completely under the concern of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, that is their whole purpose.

The UN is not meddling, they are just urging Japan to be consistent with what they government already declared to be a priority. 

They're making public statements in order to put pressure on the Japanese govnerment to amend its law. That's meddling.

*meddle (verb): to try to change or have an influence on things that are not your responsibility, especially by criticizing.

Conclusion:

The UN is meddling in Japan's internal affairs by publicly criticizing its law regarding succession.

They're making public statements in order to put pressure on the Japanese govnerment to amend its law. That's meddling.

No actual pressure, just urging the Japanese government to act according to what they themselves have said they are aiming to do, no negative repercussions, no consequence. And obviously this can also be solved by the Japanese government becoming congruent with their own actions and declarations by recognizing they are not interested in eliminating gender inequalities.

The UN is meddling in Japan's internal affairs by publicly criticizing its law regarding succession

The delcaration made no change, had no influence in the decision of the Japanese government, gender disparities are also completely inside the responsibility of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, therefore by bringing the definition you proved your claim is doubly wrong.

The delcaration made no change, had no influence in the decision of the Japanese government,

*meddle (verb): to try to change or have an influence on things that are not your responsibility, especially by criticizing.

"to try..."

Actually having an influence is not a criterion

Actually having an influence is not a criterion

It is when it proves it makes no difference, thus no meddling. Your argument is easily disproved this way. You are saying something about the issue, according to your own criteria you are meddling, and of course the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women do have a responsibility about gender equality while you on the other hand have not.

It is when it proves it makes no difference, thus no meddling

*meddle (verb): to try to change or have an influence on things that are not your responsibility, especially by criticizing.

"to try..."

Still not meddling, even if you consider your own participation in the topic this way.