Is this article a joke? I'm half-laughing because I enjoy the irony of someone arguing that the US has become a dumbocracy while failing to understand capitalism or socialism (or really indicating an understanding of the difference between communism and socialism). And really, it's not even that simple. There are socialisms not one kind of socialism, capitalisms not capitalism. Anyway, the punchline is glorious: mandatory economics classes (which, in case you're not familiar with the American education system, never cover Marxist economics) will result in people favoring capitalism. That's like saying everyone who studies English Lit will like Dickens! har har har! Was this article taken from The Onion?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
@Michael: The government has no business 'keeping families together' when all that equates is misery on both sides (or worse). It certainly doesn't have any business limiting human contact between parents and children unless there is a risk.
I do understand the lack of sympathy with this guy since he doesn't exactly do anyone a favor, especially his history having an affair. I don't know about any emails etc. It does seem that he should have done a much better job of trying to accommodate his ex-wife in the US. I currently live in a fairly small midwestern town and my (Japanese) wife is miserable here. I don't blame her. There is an extremely small Japanese community and the population is otherwise about 98% white. I can't imagine her life in TN could have been much better. I don't know why he's there. Still, I understand this act as an act of desperation and fear. The risks of divorcing a Japanese spouse when children are involved is an open secret among most of us married to Japanese (male or female). I can't say I wouldn't try the same thing if I were in his position. Waiting for the legal process is a farce in Japan - even when visitation is granted, it's not enforced. Now, none of what I say is meant to pit one legal system or country over another. Problems exist everywhere when it comes to this issue - among countries that I know, I'd rank England as just below Japan.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I stopped by to see what additional news/information I could get on this case with no intention of commenting, but your post so disturbed me I felt compelled to respond, although not in as much detail as you might like. Although it is undeniable that the new wife would have created a somewhat uncomfortable situation with the ex-wife in the same room, she is part of the father's life and, consequently, the childrens'. I don't understand your line of thinking at all - it is as if you seem to believe that the husband has to somehow live two discreet lives or, worse, that his 'old' life bears no relation to the 'new' one. The new wife has every legal and emotional right to accept the children into her life as well. They are, after all, her step-children. Why would it be strange in any way for the new wife to love his kids?
No, I would prefer that she had nothing to do with them. Chris is the one who has visitation priveleges. If he had any sense, he would know that he should not involve his new wife in the interactions with Noriko's children.
They are not 'Noriko's children. They are Chis and Noriko's children. Where are you coming from, intellectually, not geographically, when you say that if he had any sense he wouldn't involve his new wife in the interactions with his children?? I would say precisely the opposite. He is their father and clearly wants to maintain a relationship with them and have them as part of his life. The only real concern would be if he wanted to deprive Noriko of contact with the kids. However, you seem to believe that these are Noriko's 'property' to which she has to forgo some rights?
The divorced wife should have no say in whether or not the children become part of the father's 'new' family or not unless she believes they are at risk of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. Whether she is friendly with the new spouse or not is immaterial. Again, you seem to be looking upon children generally as property with certain ownership rights. I find this extremely disturbing.
Since you are speaking of 'Americans' as not part of your own identity, all I can ascertain is that you are not from the US. I am curious as to which geographical region you do identify with since it is common in Europe, including England, Australia, and New Zealand at least for children of divorcees to be part of the divorcees 'new' families. I don't know how this applies to other places. I can't say that I was ever very familiar with divorce customs in Japan to really know if your way of thinking is common or not. I do know Japanese men who won't divorce for fear of losing their children, however.
My thoughts are with Chris and other fathers caught in this insipid trap in Japan. I hope that their cases can start to set a new precedent in visitation rights for fathers in Japan, especially for non-Japanese fathers. For all the Chris' out there who brave leaving their wives only to find themselves in a struggle over basic rights to access to their children, there are many more of us more cowardly ones who would rather be with an intolerable spouse than to never see our children again.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Posted in: Among the cosmos