Ontario family law is written around the idea that women are helpless. Nonsensical by today’s standards, but in a historical context, where things like job options for women were limited to non-existent, it becomes a little more understandable.
Given that, the idea is that a year of separation allows demonstration that a woman is able to separate from her husband. The state wants to ensure that she isn’t going to be discarded to the streets where she will be left to be burden on society. If that test fails, she remains the “man’s problem.”
Why are we in Ontario intent to hang on to such sexist views? Well, it’s Ontario, land of conservatism. It took until the year 2000 for Toronto to finally give up being dry (in the prohibition sense)! We’re the Arab state of the west.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
What the fuck? Actually? What’s the reasoning there? That seems unusual to me.
Ontario family law is written around the idea that women are helpless. Nonsensical by today’s standards, but in a historical context, where things like job options for women were limited to non-existent, it becomes a little more understandable.
Given that, the idea is that a year of separation allows demonstration that a woman is able to separate from her husband. The state wants to ensure that she isn’t going to be discarded to the streets where she will be left to be burden on society. If that test fails, she remains the “man’s problem.”
Why are we in Ontario intent to hang on to such sexist views? Well, it’s Ontario, land of conservatism. It took until the year 2000 for Toronto to finally give up being dry (in the prohibition sense)! We’re the Arab state of the west.
Uh, what?! Can you point me to some further reading on that? Ontario is far stranger than I thought.
https://www.blogto.com/eat_drink/2012/02/a_brief_history_of_booze_in_the_junction/
Thanks!