I'm an American woman married to a Japanese man for a little over 4 years. My husband Ken and I have been working on the juminhyo issue for 5 years. We live in Takasaki City, Gunma-ken.

I'm so glad you are doing an issue on the juminhyo! This e-mail below is from an interview I had (via e-mail) with Tony Lazlo. The other inclusions are an English and Japanese version of an interview my husband and I had with Mr. Iwata of the Tokyo Shimbun, and also I am sending an essay my husband wrote about his feelings on the issue.

When I first read about the juminhyo exclusion of foreign family members, I was engaged, and I thought, "it's just an oversight, and we can get it straightened out before we marry." Hah! That was...5 years ago? I went to the city office, and they turned me down.

Then Lucinda Otsuka wrote an article titled, "More Than a Family Affair" in which she explained that the legal disappearing act foreign spouses undergo can be partially ameliorated by (a perfectly legal) inclusion in the bikouran. That occasioned my second visit to the city office, in which the staff asserted that the bikouran is part of the juminhyo, and that the foreigner exclusion holds there, as well.

Later, the Takasaki City Office staff, and then my friend Lisa Ueki, (another American woman married to a Japanese man) while visiting the Gunma Ken-cho, found, collected and copied the parts of the city office manual which, dating from 1967, state that a foreign family member, if settainushi, SHOULD be listed in the bikouran.

That became the impetus for the most recent year(s) meetings and results, because, why, near the year 2000, do the city offices usually allow only men or single female head of households to be listed as settainushi? And why is the only existing guideline one that bases listing on settainushi status? That is sexual discrimination and income discrimination.

Ken, regarding our campaigning over the last 5 years, wants to point out that we have never asked for anything that is not already legal, and that furthermore, everywhere we or our friends went, the answer was, "listing foreigners would be fine with us." But then the city office followed that with, "but we must have orders from above." And then the Ken-cho followed that with, "but we cannot tell the local governments what to do." And then, recently, the Jichisho said the SAME thing. So, who will do it? And where can we go next?? It is such a small thing, and a legal thing that we are asking for...

The following is an e-mail exchange between the organizer of ISSHO KIKAKU, Mr. Tony Laszlo, and Anna Isozaki regarding the non-listing of the non-Japanese spouse on the Juminhyo and the efforts in which Ms. Isozaki has engaged to correct the situation.

Q. I understand that you have succeeded in having your name written in the bikoran of the juminhyo of your household. Please tell me when you succeeded and how you managed it.

A. Ken and I got me listed in March, 1996. A lot of foreign spouses have been getting listed in Takasaki city, I think. (Mostly male, so far. As far as I know I'm the only listed female spouse, in Gunma-ken.) I got listed under the "settainushi" or "head of household" guideline, which states that if there happens to be a foreigner who is in reality the head of the household, please list that foreigner in the memo section (bikouran) of the Japanese spouse's juminhyo. The guideline is in all city office manuals, in every municipal and town office in Japan.

When my husband left his company to become a full-time student, we took the chance to get me listed under this settainushi guideline. The department heads in the city office asked to think about our request for a day, and then agreed to list me. We think the fact that the section chiefs are female helped. Also, the fact that I had visited them every 2 months for 3 years did not hurt. They were tired of seeing my face, I think. Settainushi is, legally, the appointed spokesperson for the household. (This according to a meeting Lisa Wedell Ueki had with an official of the International Affairs and an official of the Municipalities Administration offices in the Gunma Prefectural office.) (Titles and names: Soumubu kokusai ka kakari-cho Ino, and Chichouka gyousei kakari-cho Tsunoda.)

Mr. Ino and Mr. Tsunoda said the settainushi position is not necessarily supposed to be based on income or gender. However most city offices which follow the settainushi inclusion guideline, use it to justify writing foreign male spouses into the bikouran (memo) sections of their Japanese wives' juminhyo. The guideline is not binding, and some city offices refuse to list any foreigner in their Japanese spouse's juminhyo, regardless of gender or income status. In Gunma, Ikaho town has been refusing Lisa for years....they know all about the guideline and though the Prefectural office is supportive of Lisa,Ikaho town is not budging.

When Lisa went to Ikaho's office last year, carrying my husband's juminhyo (with me on it) and copies of the settainushi guideline, they said they aren't as "progressive" as Takasaki and that their computer can't handle it. When pressed on that, they revised the trouble to the printer...then said "Ikaho has a policy that (we) don't want to list foreigners..." Lisa asked for a copy of the written policy..."Oh, it is not written." They also asked if her income exceeded her husband's, which is not supposed to be the issue, but which, in reality, usually is.

My husband's juminhyo lists me in tiny letters, in kanji, as the actual head of household. It does not mention that I am his wife. So needless to say, being listed in this way is not my goal...(The kanji was my choice and request, but since this copy was made the City office decided to make it katakana with the kanji in parenthesis, and both representations of my name are handwritten. If you need a copy of the current one, let me know, and I'll send you one.) We thought it was not worth the bother to hassle over name style a lot, because our primary goal is just to make me visible. Ken and I decided to get me listed in whatever way was open to us, because in Japan precedent is so important. If I could be listed, at least we would have a concrete example of a listed female. We also are hoping that rather than slamming a door that was opened, putting our toes in the door instead will put us in a stronger position to keep requesting the listing of all spouses, AS spouses.

Q. Please tell me your feelings about exclusion from the document? Were your reasons for seeking inclusion based more on principle or in response to an emotional or physical hardship?

A. It matters to me, because I believe the issues it touches on are quite deep. For me, identity is the key issue in culture shock and in the struggle for bicultural adjustment. As a foreign woman married to a Japanese man, finding and maintaining a comfortable self-definition is somewhat more challenging than if I had married within my own country and culture. Sometimes my marriage is invisible. ("Are you paying separately for this lunch?") Sometimes disapproval is palpable. Sometimes we have spotlights on our every move, and misplaced approval - the "exotic" image of having a foreign wife. I think, if I can speak generally of foreign spouses, we balance our cultural expectations and Japan's cultural expectations, we juggle our families and our in-laws, and we adjust our dreams and aspirations. We work to fit in, or try to carve niches for ourselves and our families. Our self-images get altered, and our identities develop and change. At least for me, the root of each stage in my culture shock-cultural adjustment is an identity issue. "Who am I and how do I fit in here, and what am I doing?" are occasional existential questions that I have to examine and come to terms with, to make it into the next stage of bicultural growth and adjustment. I believe it is challenging and worthwhile, and that my husband's and my love is certainly worth it.

I also believe that my hands are quite full enough already, with the philosophical, psychological, and daily existential questions of cross-cultural life. The legal exclusion from being recognized as family with my Japanese spouse unnecessarily exacerbates what are already quite challenging identity definition issues and formalizies the lack of respect and validation for our family that we face in so many other ways. Most Japanese people do not even know that we are excluded from the juminhyo, and that most cities refuse to note us in the "bikouran," though quite legally they could. It certainly causes no inconvenience to any Japanese person to have us be listed with our families if we so desire. On the other hand, it is insulting and demeaning to us, to constantly prove that we are married to our spouses and are the parents of our children, when it should all be on the juminhyo from the day of our marriage registration.

Physically, and financially, for me personally it has been aggravating, always needing to get extra forms... For example, when, (before I was listed in his bikouran) my husband applied for a housing-family allowance from his company...and to prove we were living together, I had to change Ken to settainushi on my gaikokujin touroku shomeisho and then get a copy of that, to submit to the company, as well as his juminhyo. It was 300 yen and a city office trip... The same, to get a tax refund...When we need to get some "official" business done, it always seems to end up costing more time and money.

Other foreign women in Gunma have reported getting visits from welfare volunteers. (Ascertaining the well-being of the "motherless" children.) They find it insulting and annoying to be "checked up" on because the welfare section does not know that there is a mother present, due to the juminhyo exclusion of foreign mothers. Mostly the issues I have with the juminhyo exclusion relate to finding it insulting and demeaning to be hidden, a shameful secret in the eyes of the bureaucracy. The implication, I feel, is that it is better to have no mother, than have a foreign one. I think inclusion in the bikouran, upon our request, is a small thing to ask, and saves us time, trouble, a little money, and a lot of unneccessary explanations.

Q. What are your plans regarding the juminhyo issue?

A. Working on bringing it to the outside world, and continuing to work locally. In Kumamoto, some foreign wives and and a friend named Mrs. Furukawa had a breakthrough with the Jichisho saying: "We don't care if spouses are listed as such in the bikouran," and with the Kumamoto mayor saying, "Let's set a precedent!"

If the foreign wives in Kumamoto actually do receive listing as the mayor has promised, Ken and I will try to get Gunma to follow. Ken and I do not plan to give up - recognizing foreigners as family only if they are men, or only if they have money (and their spouses don't) doesn't seem like a policy the Japanese government would really want to stand behind in the 1990s.