Another distinguishing characteristic of the ribu movement was the extent to which its activists affirmed onna (woman) as a subject with the capacity to give birth. In contrast with Shulamith Firestone’s argument in The Dialectic of Sex, which posited that women needed to be freed from ‘the tyranny of their reproductive biology’ (Firestone, 1970: 206), ribu activists emphasised women’s sexual difference in terms of their procreative power as something to be affirmed outside of the marriage-family system (Mizoguchi et al. 1992—95, Vol. 2: 176—94). This affirmation of women’s birth-giving power, however, was to be sharply distinguished from the prevalent gender norms which dictated women’s identity as ‘good wives and wise mothers’, which was the official discourse from the pre-war and wartime periods (Uno 1993: 293—322). In fact, on
Mother’s Day in 1973, ribu activists in Tokyo organised a demonstration under a banner that read, “Mother’s Day, what a laugh!” In doing so, they wanted to point out the contradictions of a society that claimed to value mothers, yet only deemed their children to be ‘legitimate’ if these women were married to men and properly registered their children in the national family registration system.
This state system ofdiscrimination was institutionalised and reproduced by the family registration (koseki) system, whereby only a child who was born to a marrried couple and whose father recognised paternity would be registered as legitimate. This practice had material effects insofar as so-called ‘illegitimate’ children could only receive half of the inheritance portion of a legitimate (marital) child (Shimazu 1994: 84). (This provision was only overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013. At the time of writing, however, the Civil Code had not yet been amended.) In opposition to this system, ribu activists practised and supported women giving birth outside the confines of the family system. Some women formed their own communes as an alternative to the family system and raised their children together. This arrangement was both practical and ideological. By sharing a living space, women could provide each other with support in childrearing and other domestic labour, while organising their political activities. Ribu activists were also highly critical of the fact that major department stores and railways had policies against the use of baby strollers. They understood this policy to communicate the message that mothers and children should remain at home. To protest such policies, they organised demonstrations, bringing mothers, their babies and their fathers out into the streets to call for the dismantling of patriarchy, and the creation of a society that did not discriminate against mothers and children, or against those deemed weak and less productive members of a capitalist society, such as the elderly and the disabled.
Ribu communes were organised across Japan in the early 1970s, from Hokkaido in the north to Kyushu in the south (Nishimura 2006). There were communes in central Japan, in Kyoto, Osaka and several in Tokyo. The most well-known commune in Tokyo was the Ribu Shinjuku Centre, located in one of the busiest hubs of the metropolis. It opened in September 1972, with seven women (and four cats) sharing a two-bedroom apartment. Many other activists (who did not live there) worked at the centre, which served as a vital organising space in Tokyo. Five different groups (The Group of Fighting Women, Thought Group SEX, Tokyo Komu-unu, Alliance of Fighting Women and Scarlet Letter) were involved in the establishment of the Centre. Their pamphlets, bulletins and newspapers have been published in a massive three volume Collection of Ribu Shinjuku Centre Documents (Ribu Shinjuku Sent — Shiryo Hozonkai 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). This space served as a women’s shelter and commune, an organising centre, and the communication hub for nationwide events and campaigns. In what follows, I describe three of the movement’s representative campaigns: the abortion campaign, K-san, and kisaeng tourism, which illustrate how they intervened in and transformed the terms and terrain of women’s sexual politics.