Dudes’ Republic of China
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
I may need to reconsider my attitude.
IncrediblyFatMan added:
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
Revorob joked:
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Speaking of which, here’s a more balanced look at the issue on China.org.cn that examines some of the consequences of the new ruling for Chinese women.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Posted on August 22, 2011, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, gloating, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 697 Comments.
More of Magpie’s maunderings. Another problem with the Shared Responsibilities law is that there has to be so much face to face mediation and court – this means it is very difficult to go into hiding from an abusive spouse (eg a shelter interstate).
I couldn’t find the news article where a social worker pointed out that she and the kid’s mother were breaking Federal law if the child didn’t spend the weekend with it’s father, and State law if it did (because the father was a convicted child sex offender).
I was going to ask why Catalogue linked to a blogger instead of to the actual Department of Health & Human Services report, but I think I figured it out.
The DHHS report (I looked at the most recent one, not the one from a decade ago, as Catalogue’s blogger did) does show that mothers, either alone or with another person, are about twice as likely to be the perpetrator of abuse as fathers. It also shows that neglect and medical neglect make up over 80% of cases of abuse, and up to 9.6% of cases of abuse are due to things like abandonment and congenital drug addiction. (The total is about 130%, since some children suffer more than one type of abuse.)
As already noted, mothers are more likely to be help responsible for neglect, simply because they’re seen as the default child caregiver. So, I don’t know. I’m not really surprised. Saddened, yes. It’s a very sad state of affairs.
But let’s look back at what you’ve been saying throughout this thread, Catalogue. To recap, you said that family courts’ hands should be tied, and shared parenting should be the default, without regard for what’s in the best interest of the child. If shared parenting is not in the child’s best interest, you said that a court could make an adjustment later, after putting the child through months of hardship.
You said that this was good because mothers are more likely to abuse their children. When you were given evidence that there had been studies that showed that mother and fathers were pretty similarly likely to be perpetrators of child abuse, you dismissed that by saying that those studies were done using feminist statistics. When you found news articles or blogs that supported your view, you said that those were unbiased evidence of the truth.
So yes, while I agree that a game of denying child abuse would be very, very sad indeed, I’m going to have to disagree with your assessment of who’s playing that game, Catalogue. I can’t find a thread in your comments that shows a concern for abused children; only a strong interest in proving that women are evil.
@redlocker: I believe marriage, just like The Fed is rotten to the core. No amount of window dressings will change the fact that the foundation is crumbling as more and more time passes.
While I believe this and I can share my opinion with others, I can’t denounce people that do get married. It is their life not mine, and I have to at least afford them that much courtesy.
It often doesn’t work the other way though. I have gotten the whole “you need to get married”, “you need to find a good woman and start a family”, “why don’t you marry X (X being my current girlfriend)” and so on and so on and so on. But if I caved into that pressure, then what does that say of me, that I can be easily led and be a doormat to people.
“Self-sufficiency can never truly be achieved but their is a large difference between a homeless man or woman begging for money and scraps of food to a middle class homeowner with his or her house paid off. We are all forced to live by the government to a certain extent, but I prefer the least amount possible.”
What might that difference be? Luck? Any homeless person might have been a middle class homeowner with their house paid off before an earthquake, or a cyclone, or an illness which involved epic bills and an inability to work. Seriously, does this whole economic downturn not demonstrate that even when you invest as wisely as you know how, things can still go to pot? How many people’s super funds have been depleted significantly by the downturn, and what the hell are they going to do if they’re older, can’t physically work any more, and need their money now?
We are interdependent creatures. No amount of money in the world is going to help you unless you find someone else to do the things that you can’t manage or don’t have the skills for. What we need are systems in place that facilitate mutual care rather than taking advantage of one another.
Brandon you have a plan in case you ever need to go galt, dont you? im getting that vibe from your posts.
Hy beelevez dat der izt no problem dat can’t be hovercome vit a schuffishent hamount ov high explozives! Alzo too, dat the nizer de hat, de better de varrior.
@Lyn: Yes we are all interdependent to a certain extent and yes negative things can happen.
This is why if you own your own house you have insurance for it. Hell, banks even force you to get it while you are still repaying the bank. Investments are trickier depending on what people invest in. Someone investing in gold right now is probably doing very well. You don’t want to place everything you have into one or two things…it’s called diversification and we do this to help prevent massive losses in our investments.
While there is a certain amount of luck to life. The bigger and better qualities are persistence and perseverance. Make the best of what you got…then make it better.
@Sharculese: What?
@cynickal: umm…ok.
But what about 9/11, Brandon? LIHOP or MIHOP?
Brandon – ” If she is my equal then she has her own job with her own health insurance. Hence she doesn’t need to be placed on mine. Also, I am not insulting people that are getting married…I am criticizing the institution of marriage itself. I don’t look down on people that get married, but I do express my opinion as to the reasons why I think it is a bad choice. Most women I have met try there hardest to defend it while men often take pause and think of the benefits AND consequences of marriage.”
In a perfect world, most full time employment would also come with health care benefits. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and sometimes someone can be your equal with a job and still not have an opportunity to purchase health care (at least, not from an employer). In addition, some health insurance coverage is better than others. Also, some families choose not to pay two premuims for health insurance. Finally, in some instances you can stack your health insurance, using one policy as primary and the other as secondary.
Again, your choice to forgo marriage, and all of the benefits and burdens that go along with it, is your choice. But to just assume that there are no benefits that would ever make the marital relationship more beneficial than burdensome is an extremely egocentric way of looking at marriage that completely discounts the experiences and needs of other people.
Brandon –
I also forgot to mention – that was a really nice try with the whole “women irrationally defend marriage to the death, but men always take a considered approach to the benefits and consequences…” I assume your goal with a statement like that is to get me (and the other women here) backpeddling so that we show we are really considering all aspects…thing is, most of the people who have been responding to you have acknowledged the benefits and burdens of marriage. You, on the other hand, seem to be the only person who is looking at the issue from a single perspective.
Someone investing in gold right now is probably doing very well.
Why am I not surprised?
Sounds like Brandon is very young (and therefore immortal), chose his parents well, and has no children to care for.
@Rachel: In the scenario that you presented, it is in her best interests to get married, not mine. Since she is the one that would be placed on my already existing policy.
While I see no benefits to marriage, that doesn’t mean that you won’t. The whole healthcare issue seems to be very important to you and getting married (if you are not already) allows you to either get insurance or lower your premiums. From my perspective, my costs go up…hardly a benefit. Hence, your benefit is my obligation and disadvantage.
human relationships are like investments *beep boop* this is what my research into earthling behavior has shown
I get the feeling Brandon’s a Glen Beck fan. Why? I dunno…
How would socialised medicine affect your thoughts on marriage, Brandon?
@Catalogue
Your attempts to wrest power from women/feminists is valiant, and having equal access to both parents equally is always in the best interest of children, but they simply don’t care about childrens welfare. All feminists and many women will use the violence of the State which is at their disposal. They like it. They get to pretend they abhor violence while commanding the State to use violence on their behalf.
They simply attach a name like “primary caretaker” to all women to make kidnapping and extorting money from men sound noble. They’ll prattle on with excuses about women staying home as the “primary caretaker” and losing out on a career. What they neglect to mention is the luxury women who stay home enjoy, and it is a luxury, make no mistake. They also don’t mention that the reason a woman is able to stay home as the “primary caretaker” is because the man is working as the “primary moneymaker.”
If they “cared” about the childrens welfare why not put the child in the hands of the person most financially solvent and allow the woman to persue a career and give her unlimited visitation rights? The answer of course is money/power. Most importantly the man wouldn’t be punished for being a man, he must pay financially even if the woman committed adultery.
Also someone threw a stat out about women committing 71% of child abuse. Well, as feminists are apt to do, they swear 90% of rapes go unreported due to shame/embarrasment, etc. Well the same can be said about child abuse if not more so. Who would be less likely to report being abused than a child? They’re children, they’re scared, they’ll love their parents no matter what. If any crime of abuse is under-reported it has to be child abuse.
FWIW, both my wife and I have jobs eligible for health insurance. We use my wife’s for our family’s needs, because hers is better. Of course, we have kids, which changes everything. It’s hard to be a Libertarian when you have kids and aren’t rich.
“If any crime of abuse is under-reported it has to be child abuse.”
You know what? I think NWO has actually said something reality-based, here.
Except when he combines it with this: “having equal access to both parents equally is always in the best interest of children”
Interesting you mention both the Fed and the Insurance industry Brandon…because it was insurance that led to the creation of the Fed.
In 1906 something huge happened to the insurance market. It led to the Panic of 1907 which led to the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
@Magpie: I am 29, my parents are not poor nor rich (blue collar Irish family from the projects) and I don’t have any kids nor do I plan on having any. I have enough little cousins to be the “cool uncle” guy.
@Katz: Why are you surprised? Gold prices are going higher the more the dollar collapses. I see little to be surprised about.
@Rachel: Are you NOT defending marriage? I have not heard one person on this comment thread say “Ya, Brandon I feel the exact same way about marriage as you do”. There have been a few women that support my stance, but they are rare and so far not on this thread.
Well the same can be said about child abuse if not more so. Who would be less likely to report being abused than a child?
owlslave is it a rule that every post you make has to include some variation, on, i bet if research existed it would support my assumptions
maybe one day you should go looking for these studies you know in your heart of hearts are out there
Here’s an open question:
Is it a reasonable statement to say “I respect you, but I think this thing you do/think is total crap?”
It’s clearly unreasonable to say “I respect you, but this thing you think/do is obviously total crap,” because that’s saying that can’t tell that something is obviously total crap, which is not respectful.
I have enough little cousins to be the “cool uncle” guy.
the fact that this is your rebuttal to be accused of having no children speaks volumes
Brandon, you are rich enough to talk about investments.
I like being an Aunty, but not a parent, too. :)
Saying Brandon has no children was in no way an ‘accusation’. There’s nothing wrong with not having kids.
Oh Brandon, isn’t it great being a healthy white man in your late 20’s with no dependents? If only everyone else in the world were wise enough to be the same.
yeah i probably could have picked a better word than accused there but i was blanking so i just went with what came to me. no negative connotations intended.
but a good response to ‘you dont have the responsibility of caring for children to take into account’ doesnt really include ‘sometimes i am charged with entertaining other peoples children, but not to a degree that they see me as any sort of authority figure’
Brandon – in my scenario, I never stated which partner had the health insurance issue. I simply stated that some policies are better than others and some full time positions do not offer health insurance benefits at all. It could be you with the better insurance, it could be your significant other. I’m not, nor have I been, talking about your situation or mine, I am talking about the overall legal benefits and obligations of marriage for couples in general.
Finally, the health insurance issue is not of particular import to me as I have a full time job with great benefits and no need to rely on my significant other in that aspect. The reason we are discussing health insurance at all is because it was brought up by numerous individuals on this post as one of the benefits of marriage, you assumed they were talking about a different type of insurance (property insurance, maybe), it was made clear to you that the actual discussion was regarding health insurance, you assumed people were talking about adding children as dependents, it was made clear to you we were talking about adding a spouse as a beneficiary, and you assumed that this ability is irrelevant. Anyway, my personal goal to ensure that people don’t misconstrue the things that I say…and multiple times on this thread you have responded directly to me…but about something I didn’t actually say…or you have responded to something that is similar to what I said, just not quite right.
It’s hard to be a Libertarian when you have kids and aren’t rich.
Sure you can! Just emanciate them as teenagers!
isn’t it great being a healthy white man in your late 20′s with no dependents
not gonna lie it is pretty awesome
Sharculese – I know you weren’t trying to be negative :) I was thinking exactly what you said in your second para.
Brandon – I am defending the fact that for some people, marriage is the right choice and while marriage may not be something that you see as even mildly beneficial, that doesn’t make the institution as a whole wrong for everyone in every situation. Again, an automatic assumption that what is good and right for you is good and right for everyone is very egocentric.
@Sharculese
“owlslave is it a rule that every post you make has to include some variation, on, i bet if research existed it would support my assumptions”
Would that be like the hard statistics of 1 in 4 college women are raped? I mean Dave did post the link that clearly showed a very thorough study where the actual number was 1 in 1877 I believe it was. Just a slight feminist descreptancy.
Yes, you’re right, child abuse by women is over reported. Those crazy kids.
Brandon: Don’t insurance companies have the right to drop any customers they want? If you don’t like it, switch jobs!
Brandon: I begin to suspect you don’t have a very clear idea of how marriage/divorce work. You are not likely to be paying alimony, because at present the percentage of divorces which lead to grants of spousal support is 15 percent.
Alimony (or spousal support) used to be given to ex-wives to allow them to live in the same style as when they were married. These days, courts more often award maintenance to economically disadvantage spouses, regardless of sex, to help them acquire skills to be self-supporting. Courts can also order support to homemakers to compensate for faithful service.
According to Gayle Rosenwald Smith a Philadelphia Lawyer, alimony is awarded in only 15 percent of divorce cases.
The basic factors to determining if, and how much alimony a spouse receives are the following:
1. The actual need and ability of the spouses to pay
2. The length of the marriage
3. The physical, emotional health of the spouses, as well as their age
4. The standard of living established during the marriage
5. The earning capacity and educational level of each spouse
6. The reasons for the dissolution of the marriage – fault-
As to the rest… 1: You completely misunderstand the nature of the SSA, and how it’s administered.
2: It isn’t as easy as that to deal with the situations I discussed, because they are not issues of simple power of att’y. Take the issue of guardianship in the event of mental incapacity. That is stautorially determined. A simple POA can’t overide it. You have to draft a specific one to cover that. The same for general medical. End of life issues is a separate one, etc.
3: The Question of pension/401K is an inheritance issue. A simple grant is contestable, if you’ve not made it plain that you are doing it in direct intent to overide the statutory defaults.
All of which is why marriage is not something one can trvially replace with a couple of POAs and good intent.
It’s why Civil Unions, which are supposed to be the same in all but name, aren’t, not in any place which has parallel systems in place (France and England have made them specifically the same, which has angered many of the people who are cuckoo for connubial-puffs).
@Sharculese: Human relationships only become more business-like after marriage. Right now, I very much enjoy spending time with my girlfriend and it is fun and loving and completely not business-like at all. Marriage would turn it into a business which I want to avoid. There is a place for business and a place for love and intimacy. I don’t think it is good to intertwine them.
@HellKell: Glenn Beck is an idiot that doesn’t know shit other than to say the communists are taking over America…BTW….they aren’t.
@Magpie: Socialized medicine would further erode the need for marriage since everyone would have access and no one would have to “piggy back” on to their wives or husbands for coverage.
@captainbathrobe: What does politics have to do with marriage?
@Elizabeth: There were a few panics at that time where men like JP Morgan came in as the lender of last resort. It was also an attempt to corner the market on United Copper. This failed and caused a run on the banks. The book “Reminiscences of a Stock Operator” was about a trader that lived through those panics. An interesting read.
Kee-rist on the Concorde, NWO, we are NOT gonna go over your complete lack of numeric sense again.
I just wanted to know, Brandon, are you a Truther?
Brandon – a relationship between two people who love each other and chose to get married only becomes business-like if the people who are in the relationship treat their relationship like a business…there is nothing inherent in a marital relationship that requires the two people involved to treat their relationship as something less than the loving relationship it was prior to marriage.
@Pecunium
“According to Gayle Rosenwald Smith a Philadelphia Lawyer, alimony is awarded in only 15 percent of divorce cases.”
And that’s 15% too many times. I kow you’ve been indoctrinated to believe women should be rewarded for divorcing their husbands, but it’s false.
If I quit my job, will I be rewarded? I mean I broke a contract.
If I don’t pay my morgage, will I be rewarded? I broke a contract.
There’s only one contract where a person, (woman) is rewarded for breaking. The marriage contract.
Glenn Beck is an idiot that doesn’t know shit
Oh, so you don’t support buying gold?
So, NWO, in your scenario, the woman is ALWAYS breaking the contract, i.e., initiating the divorce?
What if she gave up her career in order to raise kids and her husband wanted a divorce? What if she never really had a career to begin with?
@hellkell
“Kee-rist on the Concorde, NWO, we are NOT gonna go over your complete lack of numeric sense again.”
Awww, c’mon. I mean we “know” rape isn’t reported 90% of the time. I think it’s a pretty damn good assumption child abuse is under-reported to a greater extent. Don’t you?
There was more to it then the attempt to corner the market-that was just the trigger, also the prior panics were not solved by one man like the 1907 panic was. (Although the 1869 gold ring was caused by one man but I digress.)
The funny thing to me that you would rely on insurance to solve your home being damaged while hating on something that was created because of insurance being unable to help someone repair damage to their home. Next you will tell us we should go back to the gold standard.
@Pecunium: If I get married I have a 15% chance of paying alimony. If I don’t I have a 0% chance…again not seeing the benefit. I am not worried about palimony since my state has never had a case that someone was granted palimony…so I don’t see that as a problem.
1) While I am speculating, with the current debt problem this country faces…I doubt that I will ever see a social security check in my life. Since I am not depending on this, I can take proper precautions to save for retirement.
2 and 3) Even if it was 10 contracts, I STILL think it is better than getting married, Sometimes the extra work is worth it in the long run.
Again, I do not care if people get married, nor do I insult them for making that choice. I just think it is a bad one to make. Sometimes I talk about marriage and debate it with people, I tell them and they are free to take it or leave it. I am not going to lie to them and say “Marriage is great”.
In the long run, I would like to see all the benefits that everyone has claimed marriage provides, decoupled from marriage completely and those benefits and rights belong to all citizens not just married couples. Anything less is discrimination IMHO.
If I quit my job, will I be rewarded? I mean I broke a contract.
If you’re fired, we have this thing called severance pay.
You can’t even come up with bad analogies correctly.
Brandon, so you agree that we are all interdependent and that sometimes things go wrong. Then you list all the things that people should do to stop things going wrong. OK – you’re missing the point. You cannot control everything. You are as ‘independent’ as you are now partially because of luck – all the good investment strategies in the world, diversification etc., can’t help you if all of the things you’ve invested in go bad at once…like with the market at the moment where pretty much any investment is risky. Sure, probabilities dictate that if you diversify that you’ll do better, but all you do is decrease your chance of things going wrong, you do not stop them altogether. Also, being white and childless also makes for an easier life in terms of getting loans and jobs and paying of mortgages etc.
Now, you’ve argued that marriage is bad because it fosters dependence, and I’ve argued that we are all dependent on one another to some degree so this is not an adequate reason for getting rid of marriage.
Now, I think that people should all have a right to get married, and that there are measures we can take to ensure that things are as fair as possible to all parties, both within the marriage and after it (though, I’d venture that I think that the measures which protect women and children from being made destitute are more important than you do). I personally don’t want to get married because of the centuries of oppression of women associated with the practice, and because my parents are divorced and I feel like there are enough reasons to stay together when you are unhappy in a long term relationship, people don’t need marriage as another reason to feel guilty/bad about breaking up. This, however, does not mean I want people to stop getting married, nor am I going to judge anyone for doing so.
@Pecunium: If I get married I have a 15% chance of paying alimony.
That’s it, he’s a sockpuppet for NWO.
I realize I’ve accused *everyone* of being a sockpuppet today, but I refuse to believe that there are two people in the world with that bad of a grasp on statistics.
For reals, Brandon, why are you so convinced that, if you get married, your girlfriend will inevitably divorce you? Why do you trust her so little?
Also, I hope everyone took note of this:
Not financial equal. Equal. If you make less money than him, you have less value as a human being.
That’s funny, I don’t recall signing a contract when I got married. I signed the marriage license, but there wasn’t any contract. I definitely would have remembered that, as there is generally lots of initialing involved.
@katz
“If you’re fired, we have this thing called severance pay.”
Severance pay? Gee katz, we’re not all bankers where when we get fired we get a juicy package of a few hundred grand. Normally when you get fired it’s because you fucked up and deserve to get fired. That’d be accountability, the enemy of feminism. Maybe the State gives severance pay since they just defer to cost to the serfs, in the real world it doesn’t work that way. Man I hope I get fired soon so I can get a severance package. HAHAHA.
@captainbathrobe
“That’s funny, I don’t recall signing a contract when I got married. I signed the marriage license, but there wasn’t any contract. I definitely would have remembered that, as there is generally lots of initialing involved.”
If it’s not a contract, alimony couldn’t exist.
If you get fired you get unemployment.
There are many benefits to men to get married…more so then for a woman-which is why society has to pressure women into getting married and make it seem yucky to men.
Economically, socially, health wise…just better all around for men to get married.
CB-that marriage license IS the contract…which is why you cannot just pinkie swear.
How do you figure, NWO? Parenthood isn’t a contract, yet child support exists.
who the fuck is important enough to have an employment contract but not important enough to demand severance pay. owlslave are you making up nonsense hypotheticals again?
Alimony is not a contractual right, it is an equitable remedy; i.e., it is a remedy based on was is fair and just for the people and the situation involved.
@Katz: What does Glenn Beck have to do with gold? Is he trying to get people to own gold? The guy is for the most part a big sensationalist twit and I don’t really pay attention to him or his TV or radio show.
I support buying gold for one reason and it has nothing to do with Glenn Beck. Gold is maintaining it’s purchasing power while the US dollar is becoming worthless. Why would I hold on to ever increasingly worthless money when I can prevent my savings from going down the drain?
@Elizabeth: What am I hating on that prevented people from fixing their homes? Marriage has been around far longer than the idea of insurance. Or are you talking about The Fed? The main problem with The Fed is that by increasing the money supply with TARP, QE1 and QE2, The Fed has lowered the overall value of everyone’s dollar. This causes inflation which is nothing but a hidden tax that harms people who save their money and the poor. What Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Geithner and the rest of both administrations did was a damn travesty against the poor and the lower middle class.
I am not sure of the gold standard as it was back during Nixon, but I would like to see money get pegged to something so that one private bank can’t just cut all our money’s value in half because they can just print more money.
oh, was = what. My bad.
Not gonna answer my questions, NWO? Figures.
Brandon, meet NWO. He’s your Ghost of Christmas Future.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight, someone does not know much about economics. You might want to stop reading Mr. Mies.
@Anti-Lyn (otherwise known as Lyn)
“(though, I’d venture that I think that the measures which protect women and children from being made destitute are more important than you do).”
Women and children? How about men and children? In the old days they were given a name as well. What was it? Hmmm, oh yea, fathers. Rumor has it, they once had rights. Well just thank the goddess women and children are able to live comfortably!
@hellkell
I asked you a question as well, no answer?
Is it really, Beth? I’ll believe you if you say so, but it’s unlike any other contract I’ve ever signed. In any event, how can divorce constitute breaking the contract, if there’s a legal procedure in place for just that contingency?
were on to kooky goldbuggery now
brandon i could win like seven games of internet libertarian bingo using nothing but your comments
Sure, your comment about child abuse being under reported was as someone else said, the first reality based thing you’ve said ever here. I’ll even agree with you.
Your turn.
“While I see no benefits to marriage, that doesn’t mean that you won’t. The whole healthcare issue seems to be very important to you and getting married (if you are not already) allows you to either get insurance or lower your premiums. From my perspective, my costs go up…hardly a benefit. Hence, your benefit is my obligation and disadvantage.”
You’re a vile little person, to look at it this way with your lover. A truly vile little human being. Randroids have defective emotions; I’d be happy if my girlfriend were safer. Fuck the costs, money is less important than her.
“This is why if you own your own house you have insurance for it. Hell, banks even force you to get it while you are still repaying the bank. Investments are trickier depending on what people invest in. Someone investing in gold right now is probably doing very well. You don’t want to place everything you have into one or two things…it’s called diversification and we do this to help prevent massive losses in our investments. ”
Actually, banks force you to get loan insurance, as an aggregate. Actual homeowners insurance is not nearly so forced. If you invest in gold, you’re not actually doing super awesome unless you specifically invested in one of those companies that fleeces stupid people with gold. You’re not doing bad, but you’re not doing super well either.
Frankly, owning your own home is a stupid bet for most people. Especially since you, Self Sufficiency Guy, are not only trading “Will my landlord raise my rent?” worries (Which you will reduce substantially with a long term contract) for market concerns, but you’re now suddenly entirely responsible for all maintenance. Which I just know a crazy person like you dedicated to self sufficiency has to be completely capable of if the alternative is paying for it… right?
That you think diversification is proof against major loss tells me you’re a complete amateur; mind, so am I, but I know that it’s not that easy. Yes, you should diversify unless you just love to take massive risks, but you’re not actually safe just because you’re not crammed into one place. Just safer.
“@Pecunium: If I get married I have a 15% chance of paying alimony. If I don’t I have a 0% chance…again not seeing the benefit. I am not worried about palimony since my state has never had a case that someone was granted palimony…so I don’t see that as a problem.”
She can only get alimony if she actually sacrificed her career to raise the kids. If you absolutely insist on you both having a career, it’s really not an issue, and there’s no problem
“2 and 3) Even if it was 10 contracts, I STILL think it is better than getting married, Sometimes the extra work is worth it in the long run.”
It’s substantially more, in most states. And why? Because alimony? You’ve already taken care of that by only marrying a woman who sticks to her career (Which I think is completely fair, personally.)
And don’t forget the major reason you are taking all this trouble only kicks in if you end the relationship, which generates even MORE work as you begin cancelling joint accounts, etc. If you only marry someone who has a career, you’re probably going to lose more on lawyers setting the contracts up then you were in alimony. And no, I’m not counting divorce proceedings; I’m pretty sure those would actually be cheaper than sorting out your property messes, because divorce is well established and easy enough to legally work through.
“In the long run, I would like to see all the benefits that everyone has claimed marriage provides, decoupled from marriage completely and those benefits and rights belong to all citizens not just married couples. Anything less is discrimination IMHO.”
Look, I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those rights and benefits come part and parcel with the difficulty to change the beneficiaries and rights holders. You’re not going to get this shit at 0 risk (Yes, the lawyers are risks; all else being awesome they can still mess up).
I care about men NWO, I was responding to someone who appears to be an MRA and MRAs tend to think that having measures in place to stop women and children being destitute is communism or some crap. They tend to be totally for all of the measures protecting men from being made destitute. Therefore, it makes sense that I would think that protections for women and children are more important than an MRA. This does not therefore immediately mean that I don’t think men should be able to access good food, clean water and housing. I do think all human beings should have access to the things which they require for survival.
Context. It matters.