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.
@captainbathrobe
It’s common knowlege. I can’t believe you people will argue over anything. This is like 8th grade stuff here.
Never mind captainbathrobe, they use capitals cause it’s easier to read, yea thats it.
Whoa, I’m outta here.
NWO: Somehow I doubt a first line CSR has the ability to change the way computer programs format data. And I also doubt that you’ll be able to make any headway with the programming department, either.
Whoa, I’m outta here.,/i>
Again, and I am unanimous in this, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Yes, please leave. I can actually feel my IQ dropping. Look! All caps!
Hehe, its common knowledge? Whoa, someone is doing a TERRIBLE job of giving all of that common knowledge to the people who, you know, actually teach and practice and enforce the law! BUT HOW WILL ALL OF THOSE CONTRACTS NOT IN CAPITAL LETTERS BE ENFORCED! Whatever will happen?! The humanity!
NWOSLAVE, IF YOU READ THESE WORDS YOU WILL BE BOUND BY A CONTRACT…TO HENCEFORTH STOP BEING SUCH A CREDULOUS YAHOO.
@bee- advanced contracts? ugh, two semesters was enough, thanks
Where did you go to school?!
Capital letters means corporate? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… ooooh shit, son, stop–you ARE KILLING ME WITH LAUGHTER.
Did you really say this:
Because there’s so much wrong there, up to and including the fact that you don’t really “own” credit.
And you still have no grasp of commodities speculation, I see.
NWO, your stupid makes makes the baby Jesus cry.
“Where did you go to school?!”
All we know is, it was just one giant class called Learnin.
also i wish i had known about the doctrine of capitals equals corporate today so could have proposed doing my 30 page corporate governance paper on that instead of when directors have a duty to liquidate
Spear, you beat me to it. He must have gone to a highly unusual middle school.
Seriously, this is like the best description of a contract I have ever read…I am contemplating sending it around my lawfirm tomorrow for the lulz.
Rachel, you should and report back.
_THE STATE_
YEAH, RACHEL, DO IT.
Now you have to. You’re legally bound by a contract owned by the state.
Well I have already shared it with a few different attorneys, and everyone agrees that it made their night and they got a good chuckle out of it. One friend who is waiting on her bar results said, “I told you I failed the bar… :)”
We need to restore capitalism by instituting strict price controls.
Now that it’s a legal obligation, I guess I have no choice! I don’t want the state to come after me…
I would like to take this opportunity to thank NWO for the hours of free entertainment he has provided us. Seriously, you should think about retaining an agent and going on tour–just beware any CAPITAL LETTER contracts, lest the Rothschilds take possession of your soul.
My will is in lowercase. I guess it means nothing.
Idiot.
My marriage license shows our names in lowercase. I guess I’m not married.
Idiot
Not all my work contracts have my name in uppercase. I guess I don’t have that business.
Idiot.
Kave: Holy shit, I think my marriage license is the same! OH, THE HORROR! Is it a plot? Maybe the county clerks are uncapitalizing the licenses of feminists, just to make sure our evil, castrating marriages aren’t valid. I demand an investigation!
I doubt slave will be back tonight. He has issues with saying maybe I was wrong and I don’t know everything.
I know he’s reading though. Life lesson for you slave. First no one knows everything. Second when you make a statement that you think is fact and everyone around you both denounces and shows you evidence to the contrary it’s time to say no one knows everything.
Third is easy. When you get your world view from conspiracy websites from people who wear tinfoil hats expect to be doing the second a great deal of the time.
You know, I really think NWO is off somewhere muttering about how ignorant some people are. He really believes this is common knowledge.
Tonight, I think I finally understand how Michelle Bachman could become president. Her base is people who think the shit NWO believes is “common knowledge.”
I don’t know anything about how contracts work either. That’s why I don’t barge into conversations and try to correct people on the subject.
I love the part about how “Wikipedia is just some people’s opinions!” but holocaust denial conspiracy website are totally legit.
Spear I sign them all the time and I don’t know how they work. They just work. If one of us reneges then we can go to court to have a court appointed judge decide for or against us.
What I do know is I’m not going to hire the lawyer to tell us why slave’s visa card is in uppercase. I will however wonder why that is the only contract he’s signed in his life.
My, my, the IRS is onto this one:
The “straw man” claim is premised on the erroneous theory that most government documents do not actually refer to individuals. Users of the “straw man” theory falsely claim that only documents using an individual’s name with “standard” capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the individual’s name in all upper-case letters, which is common in some government documents, refers to a separate legal entity, called a “straw man.” These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation of a “straw man,” they are not liable for the debts, including the tax debts, of their “straw man,” that taxing the “straw man” is illegal because the “straw man” is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or that no tax is owed by the real individual because it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a “Treasury Direct Account” held in the name of the “straw man.”
It’s a scam, a garden variety tax evasion scheme–sold by hucksters and charlatans. i did a Google search, because I apparently have too much time on my hands, and this “theory” is pushed by Alex Jones and his ilk. Complete horseshit, but a lie repeated often enough becomes true…
Here’s another link from the ADL that references numerous cases in which the issue of all capitals is dealt with extensively.
http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss4.asp
I have done a lot of research into the issue of capitalization (it comes up occasionally at work along with a bunch of other sovereign citizen mucky mucky), as near as I can determine the development of ALL CAPITALS came because it made reading legal documents faster.
I am not the only one who has looked into this.
My best friend and I are constantly having to look up where some of this really esoteric stuff comes from because he has to deal with defendants who believe this stuff and get charged with crimes for using it. I have three “books” that have been published on the topics and I really need to start going to the gun shows to get more because I find it interesting to know why they are wrong. (Fun fact, the Moroccan/US Treaty of Peace and Friendship Treaty is the oldest unbroken treaty the US has. Yes someone used that as a legal argument as to why he could not be charged under Arizona state law.)
There also is the occasionally really funny appellate case involving these SC. The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the same as being incompetent… :D
My marriage licence has our names handwritten with only the first letters capitalized.
Also, Brandon, you can write up contracts all you like, but if they are challenged in court, will they be upheld? Too many LGBT folk had their personal contracts set aside.
Finally, I realize now that I am doing feminism wrong. In my divorce, my husband (who made double what I make) walked away with the house, the cars, and all our savings. This was what I wanted, because he was in a position where he needed those resources more than I did. But anyway. I learn now that I failed at feminism. Sigh.
Just to freak out NWO, my organ donor register card has my name in capitals – I suppose this means THE STATE can come and reap my organs any time, Monty Python style! :)
NWO, my visa card has the title MISS in capitals, does that mean it’s now part of my name?
I like this game..
The screenplays I write have all the characters’ names in capitals. Does that make them real people owned by the STATE? Also, SOUND OF KID SCREAMING is in caps, so what IS that?
And where does this leave belle hooks, who has no capitals at all in her name?
The mind reels. My contract for shipping my goods… apparently not binding, because my name wasn’t written in capital letters.
I don’t even know what to make of the idea that a default on a collateralised loan leading to the seizure of the collateral (as the prescribed remedy in the contract) is supposed to prove.
Apparently the company telling me that a long forgiven debt is now owned by them, and I can pay it off for 30 cents on the dollar (which is about the cost of the original debt… now almost 20 years old, after they computed the interest) is a real contract, one I have to abide by… they put my name in capital letters.
And those contracts I signed, the one’s where the only place my name was on the document was where I wrote it in, and it wasn’t in all caps (neither was the name of the other party), and I used my everyday name, not the one on my birth certificate… I can just blow them off.
Yeah… I’ll be sure to tell that to the judge.
Wait. I just looked at my birth cerficiate.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Mixed case.
My name…
Mixed case.
They can’t sell my Birth Certificate.
I am FREE.
NWOSLAVE
Do I own you now?
Well, I won’t have to prostitute myself to pay off my student loans because of a little thing called a competitive fellowship. In other words, I got paid to go to school. And no, cry-baby woman-haters, my fellowship wasn’t awarded for my vagina. It was awarded for my work.
NWO doesn’t understand how corporations work either…
…But I think that was established a dozen or so topics ago
Spear,
Slavey gets pwned on a regular basis, so you’ll have to get in line. :)
ya i would love to see owlslaves (or any sovereign citizen types) definition of what a corporation actually is
So we’ve established that NWOaf is, as well as an innumerate misogynist, consiracy theorist, and all-around weirdo:
– a creationist
– anti-vaccine
– anti-fluoride
– a global warming denier
– at least friendly to holocaust denial
– a gold bug
– and a SOVEREIGN CITIZEN to boot!
He truly is the gift that keeps on giving.
PS – NWO, my first name is spelled entirely lowercase on my marriage certificate. The rest is mixed case. Have i completely BLOWN YOUR MIND?
…
Reading an NWO post is like watching the Twilight Zone on Crystal Meth.
I mean, jesus christ. And I don’t even know anything about contract law.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth: I looked over the marriage and health benefits links you posted.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20041215/health-perks-of-marriage
1) Taken straight from the health benefits link:
“Married men were more likely to be overweight or obese. The problem was worst among middle-aged married men; three out of four men aged 45-64 were overweight or obese. The slimmest groups were men and women who had never married”
Strike 1! Higher rate/chance of getting fat = not a benefit
Now on to the marriage benefits: I don’t want to list them on by one so I will just keep the same grouping the author has.
Tax Benefits
Sure you might get a tax break, but I can achieve almost the equivalent by filing single and depositing a larger portion of my check into a retirement plan which would then lower my AGI, which means I pay less in taxes….and get a fatter retirement account.
Estate Planning Benefits
Sure, you get a few special types of trusts you can enter, but that doesn’t prevent you from opening a trust. The only thing I see here that is an actual benefit is avoiding estate and gift taxes. In this case, if I have that much wealth, what do I care if they tax it at 40%…I am dead. And it is not like my widowed wife wouldn’t get anything.
Government Benefits
You can still get public assistance benefits married or not. The veteran’s and military benefits only apply to service members and their spouses…so it’s not even a benefit that is even across all married couples. Benefits only married service members. I also don’t qualify so it’s not a benefit for me.
The whole Social Security, Medicare and disability benefits would not benefit me because most likely I would be the provider of the family (like most men are…house-husbands are rare). This would be a benefit for the woman…not men. Also, my lack of faith in the SSA makes me take steps to not depend on it when I reach retirement age. Women also live longer than men by about 7 years, so it would be rare to see a wife die before her husband. Meaning I have little to no chance of ever actually receiving this benefit.
Employment Benefits
I see family leave as the only benefit here. Retirement plans can name beneficiaries in case of death. Also, she should be working, hence have her own health insurance and not be depending on me to place her on my policy. Isn’t that what feminism is all about…having women not depend on a man.
Medical Benefits
Again, solved with a medical proxy. And visitation rights is the only benefit here.
Death Benefits
These can be handled with a will, which everyone should have one regardless of marriage. I can see young couples not getting a will…but this is death we are talking about. You should have one after 40.
Family Benefits
It is nearly impossible for single people to adopt, man or woman. So if you want to adopt it is a benefit for you (I don’t). Child support happens regardless of marriage. The same for father visitation rights (as long as the courts grant him visitation). Spousal support = money I am paying to an ex-wife = obligation not benefit.
Housing Benefits
Where are these “family only” locations…not in my state…hell not even in New England if I want to broaden it out to include a whole region. Automatically renew leases? Ya…I don’t like people (wife or anyone else) making decisions when I am not there. I also don’t like the idea of someone committing me to obligations that I am not part of. Or even give them the authority to commit me to those obligations.
Consumer Benefits
Sure, you get a few discounts for insurance. But depending on the company, you can also get lower rates by doing a few things: Maintain a good driving record = lower auto. Stop smoking = lower health insurance. Tuition costs are a plus if you have children. But there is always FAFSA and grants.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Most of these are fringe issues except for the ones related to crime. First off, I wouldn’t marry someone with a criminal record or that I suspect has “dealings” with the authorities. Second, if she was in jail for an extended period of time (like 5-10 years)…see you later! I will write you.
Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships
Doesn’t really apply to me personally…but this just mentions federal benefits which are under “Government Benefits” above.
Final Remarks
Marriage seems like it has a lot of benefits for women. Alimony, health insurance, etc… But most of the benefits are towards the non-working person (predominately women). For a man, (who is most likely the working person of the marriage) might be held liable or is otherwise obligated to pay the non-working person. Divorce happens a lot in America, so I think it would be naive of me not to “write off” the idea of the relationship not working.
I guess now I see why so many of the commenters where defending it…you girls get a lot of perks.
Well, I won’t have to prostitute myself to pay off my student loans because of a little thing called a competitive fellowship. In other words, I got paid to go to school. And no, cry-baby woman-haters, my fellowship wasn’t awarded for my vagina. It was awarded for my work.
AWESOME.
I consolidated my loans through this program, and applied for their income contingent repayment plan
http://www.loanconsolidation.ed.gov/
Now I only have to pay about $30/month and after 25 years the remainder is forgiven. It owns. On the other hand, the black helicopters will take me away any second now, so YMMV.
“I guess now I see why so many of the commenters where defending it…you girls get a lot of perks.”
There are guys here, too, Brandon. And they objected to what you’re saying.
@Redlocker: The “you girls get a lot of perks” can easily be substituted for “the person without the job in the marriage sure gets a lot of perks”
The “you girls get a lot of perks” can easily be substituted for “the person without the job in the marriage sure gets a lot of perks”
this is the dumbest thing youve said so far, and i dont have any desire to get married like ever.
maybe its the fact that i was raised by parents who took being equal partners seriously, but i find your paranoid delusions about marriage to be absolutely depressing.
we get it. youre a selfish child who can stand the idea of having to reach a consensus with someone else ever, but have you considered that maybe you should just lighten the fuck up.
@Brandon: Ok, yeah, not to be pedantic, but to make an assumption like that shows that you have a lot to learn in regards to what marriage is and how it works.
Yeah, the unemployed partner (if there is one) “gets a lot of perks” because both partners get “a lot of perks”; it’s (when done right) a win-win situation. Because a lot of times things like managing a household and having children and growing old and navigating insurance/banking/housing/legal matters is easier with two people doing it together. I mean, a marriage is basically like having a roommate who shares their insurance with you and sleeps with you and has your back when life gets tough; as one person described to me it’s like having a sleepover with your best friend every single night!
But I suppose that’s not a calculating-enough view of it for you, because it acknowledges non-financial benefits and those are hard to assign numbers too.
I mean, a marriage is basically like having a roommate who shares their insurance with you and sleeps with you and has your back when life gets tough; as one person described to me it’s like having a sleepover with your best friend every single night!
Yeah, I don’t think the dude who doesn’t want to get married because he thinks (1) that this means he won’t get to travel on the weekend (2) that this idea reflects a suitable way to think about intimacy with another person will really “get” that concept
The “you girls get a lot of perks” can easily be substituted for “the person without the job in the marriage sure gets a lot of perks”
But you can still call us children, right?
Brandon, you still haven’t explained why, if you like your girlfriend, you balk at the idea of helping her if she falls into trouble.
Brandon –
I think you are missing the real point here. No one here has said that you, Brandon, should get married and you are missing out on a lot of “perks” of getting married. People here are saying that you, Brandon, are naive for thinking that a legal marriage carries no perks for anyone ever under any circumstance because it is always best for everyone everywhere to remain single always.
Marriage isn’t an option for you. Duh. No one cares if you want to get married. People here are just pointing out that your inability to even consider a situation or relationship different from your own is…well, I guess I would call it immature, for lack of a better word.
Also, what is with your assumption in your last comment that benefits only come to the person who makes less money or doesn’t have a job? I mean, there are a lot of perks that could get better if both people have a job. For instance, yes, you may both have your own insurance options at work…but maybe one is better than the other and together you could choose the best one. Yes you will have your own SS payments (in theory), but after your significant other dies you would continue to receive her SS payment as well. Maybe you should have a will at 40…but what if your will written in a such a way that a court will not uphold it? What if you die at 39? Yes, you can get great tax benefits by putting more money in your retirement account…or you could get those tax benefits AS WELL AS those associated with being married.
In the end, marriage has benefits. Being unmarried has benefits. Do what you think is right for you (duh), but what right do you have to look down on other people who have weighed the pros and cons of marriage and decide that the pros outweigh the cons? It is your pompous declaration that marriage is always wrong/has no benefits that cannot be obtained in other ways that has people worked up, not your personal choice to avoid marriage.
Brandon, you still haven’t explained why, if you like your girlfriend, you balk at the idea of helping her if she falls into trouble.
um, hello, financial risk. Jeez, do I have to explain everything here?
Hahahaha VoiP, actually the first thing that I thought was “wow, so all of the perks mentioned (which were not actually perks but benefits) of getting married is all of those things happen automatically upon marriage without any extra effort on the part of either side of the couple. And it means that instead of spending weeks (and trying to make sure to remember update everything when life changes) to set up the same benefits, they are done in one fell swoop.”
Also, I see a lot of women coming through my work whose husbands ran up debt before they got divorced that the woman is now responsible for. So it seems, if I was going to just go off of what I see at work, the idea is that men do not only refuse to pay child support, they also tend to force their ex-wives into either bankruptcy or long term wage garnishments.
Known as “sexually transmitted debt”
@Sharculese; Could you actually elaborate on why it is the “dumbest thing you have ever heard”. If you can’t even refute any of my points, then it really isn’t the dumbest thing you have heard. Also, I have a good relationship with my girlfriend and my parents did a fine job of raising me. If avoiding a institution of obligations and liabilities makes me a child…then so be it. Are you next going to make the claim that I am “not a real man”?
@Bagelsan When done right? You realize that is a lot of wishful thinking. Divorce rates are increasing so if other people can’t even get it “right” than what hope do I have? From a statistical POV, it is unlikely that my marriage will be “done right”. Also, since I am not the only person in the relationship, I really don’t have a say in trying to “make it work”. If she wants out, then I am shit out of luck.
I spend a lot of nights with my girlfriend. I don’t need marriage to create the “sleepover with your best friend every night” concept. In fact, co-habitation is on the rise, which is basically what you are describing.
@Voip: When did I make the claim women were children? Never.
@Katz: I do help out my girlfriend when she needs it and I am able to help…but it is on my terms not the courts to help her. By helping her without strong-arming me, by the legal system, I see my help as far more authentic and shows that I actually care about her because I DONT need a third party telling me what to do.
@Rachel: Again, I am not insulting married couples…but the marriage institution itself which are two separate things. Not once have I said “people that get married are idiots” You trying to make that claim is like calling me un-American because I am criticizing one department in the government. I can be against marriage, but not against the people that do get married.
@Elizabeth: You are still talking about getting married is the easiest way to get those benefits. I am making the claim that for most men (or working member of the marriage) those benefits are 1) will not benefit the earner of the marriage and 2) are actually obligations instead of benefits.
———————————————
I find it interesting that most of you have latched on to my “perks” comment without actually refuting any of my points. Can you name ONE legal benefit that benefits the earner in the marriage and can ONLY get by marrying? And no, “sharing you life”, “having children” remarks…I can do all those without marriage. I am talking about a written down legal benefit that would benefit the earner.
In the end, it really depends on how you look at marriage. If I was a woman then marriage does look enticing since I can get picked up my his insurance and if he dies I am entitled to his pension, 401K and Social Security check. I would also be entitled to half of his assets at the divorce. This most likely explains why the majority of divorces are filed by women.
The more I think about it…it seems that marriage could be seen as a parasitic system in which one person benefits at the expense of the other.
brandon, youre putting yourself out there as an expert on what marriage is without yourself having any personal experience with the institution. pretty much the only response left to your conspiracy theory is to point out that youre behaving like a spoiled brat. so thats what i went with.
I also find it laughable that some of you have tried to link my marriage views to me being incapable of being in a loving relationship. I am in a loving relationship right now as I am typing this.
@Sharculese: I also haven’t bungie jumped…but I still can look at it and say “That just looks stupid and potentially dangerous”. Do you even know the definition of conspiracy theory? People have brought up points about marriage and I have made the claims that they aren’t benefits. That’s called debating, not believing in a conspiracy theory.
I have a different POV about marriage. That doesn’t make me a spoiled brat. Can I redeem myself if I don’t use my own critical thinking and just accept your POV without any resistance?
I also haven’t bungie jumped…but I still can look at it and say “That just looks stupid and potentially dangerous”.
there is a qualitative difference between ‘x looks dangerous’ and trying to authoritatively lecture people on the experience x. youre engaged in the second one.
Do you even know the definition of conspiracy theory? People have brought up points about marriage and I have made the claims that they aren’t benefits. That’s called debating, not believing in a conspiracy theory.
i know the definition of corny debate-club rules lawyering. does that count?
I have a different POV about marriage. That doesn’t make me a spoiled brat. Can I redeem myself if I don’t use my own critical thinking and just accept your POV without any resistance?
you can cut out this whiny ass victimology to start with. theres no faster way to make my respect for someone plummet than to start bleating about viewpoint discrimination. im under no obligation to respect your viewpoint, especially when i think you manufactured it out of wholecloth. if this upsets you, again, you should maybe try a college debate club or some other handholding forum where you can all pat each other on the back for enjoying the form of rigorous debate divorced from meaning or substance.
but i didnt call you a spoiled brat because of your viewpoint, i called you a spoiled brat because your obsession with maintaining your perfect little universe of you comes off as selfish and immature. bratty, you might say.
Brandon: If you assume that marriage is an arrangement where the man earns money and the woman doesn’t — which is an asinine assumption, since it doesn’t reflect reality in the least — then certainly there are benefits for the “earner”.
The supposed “non-earner” must make a huge upfront investment in the marriage — that is, abandon her financial independence and career — in return for, essentially, room and board. And also the respectable status of “married, thank God, not like some unfuckable old maid”. Other than those three things, there are no benefits for the “non-earner” in the marriage.
The “earner” gets an unpaid servant, who cooks his meals, acts as his personal secretary, keeps the children from being a nuisance to him, satisfies him sexually, cleans up his shit, and generally does absolutely everything that needs to be done, because his life of working at the office is hard enough.
Because he is the “earner”, he is entitled to weekends, vacations and daily evening rest. Because she is the “non-earner”, she must service him and the children round the clock, with no weekends, holidays, or vacations, and, for the most part, with no sick leave, either.
Because he is the “earner”, his problems are important, and his discussion of those problems must be listened to, emphasized with and taken seriously. Because she is the “non-earner”, her problems are trivial and she has no right to disturb the “earner”s peace of mind by alerting him to such problems or by seeming troubled. The “earner’s” problems are their problems, to be addressed as a family. The “non-earner’s” problems are her problems, and the “earner” is expected not to have to deal with her shit. Her shit includes birth control and and maintaining a sufficient level of reproductive health to always be available to the “earner”, at his convenience.
Because he is the “earner”, he has a social life that includes co-workers, colleagues and various acquaintances with whom he interacts when out and about, because God knows, his life is hard enough. Because she is the “non-earner”, she gets virtually no adult interaction, at least not the kind that doesn’t revolve around child-care and husband-care.
Because he is the “earner” and she is not, he is presumed to be the only one actually doing any work in the marriage. After all, one of the most fundamental presumptions about labor in our culture, is that it ain’t work if you are not getting paid for it. No matter how many hours she spends caring for him and the children and the home, people like you still presume that she is a “parasite” who lives “at the expense” of the poor office drone, who spends a whopping 10 hours a day out in the cruel, harsh world, and no less than two hours of that actually working.
As time goes by, and the “non-earner” becomes less and less employable, there is an added benefit to the “earner” in her increasing dependency on him and his consequent greater freedom to treat her like shit.
If you still have any questions — and continue to persist in your dishonest assumption that most married women don’t work and live at the expense of the husband — I recommend you read this very detailed explanation of the benefits of marriage for the “earner”.
@Sharculese: First off, I was mocking not whining. Second, you didn’t respect me or my viewpoint to begin with since you resorted to name-calling very early on in the debate. So I doubt you would respect it now….nor do I really care if you respect my POV.
@Amused: Most marriages either have both parties working or the man is working while the woman stays home. While stay at home husbands/dads do exist, they are few and far between. So I don’t think it is asinine to make the claim that in heterosexual marriages, the man is most likely the earner.
I know of no married couple where the woman acts as the slave in the relationship. However I have seen my fair share of “yes..anything you say honey” men. Men who have broken spirits and are nothing but a paycheck to his family and an empty shell of a man.
I also work, cook for myself, do my own laundry and everything else you have mentioned. Those tasks are pretty easy and not really time consuming. Most of it is automated anyways…dishwashers, washing machines, etc…
The issue about sex is funny since most of my male friends that got married talk about getting a lot of sex pre-marriage but getting little to none after marriage. Also, men are required to sacrifice in this aspect as well. The “you can only have sex with one woman” is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of men.
The link you provided is nothing more than expectations someone has made in what they want in a marriage (or the author Judy is doing it mockingly). Either way, you are under no obligation to do any of it nor is the man able to force you to do it. He can have all the expectations he wants…that doesn’t mean shit.
So I ask again, if I got married what benefit would I receive that I could only get by being married. This isn’t about having a damn slave wife…I want to see a benefit that is given out by law that would benefit me if I got married.
Brandon: First of all, the fact that there are more housewives than househusbands does not support your ridiculous assumptions that most married women are housewives. The overwhelming majority of married women work. The fact that you are denying this simple reality is another manifestation of how misogynists devalue women’s work, even though they would highly value the same work if done by a man.
As for legal rights, if you got married, you would get the exact same benefit in marriage as your wife — half of marital property upon divorce, and to keep all of your premarital property. If you are the “earner”, you are free to earn nothing. Just as you put it, it’s “nothing more than expectations someone has made in what they want in a marriage”. You are not under any legal obligation to earn one goddamned cent, nor is the woman able to force you to do it. She can have all the expectation she wants … that doesn’t mean shit. Fair enough?
As for your friends’ sex lives, they should get it through their heads that women are just as sexual as men. We derive just as much pleasure from sex, we get just as horny, and it’s just as tough a pill to swallow for women, “you can only have sex with this one selfish, aging douchebag”. When we don’t want to have sex, it is for the same reasons that men sometimes don’t want to have sex: (1) we are dead-tired; or (2) we are sick; or (3) we are mad at you. If your sexually frustrated friends stop seeing sex as something that women give out and start seeing it more as a mutual endeavor, if they investigate the cause of their wives’ lack of excitement instead of assuming that’s just how bitches are, and for heavens sake, pick up some slack at home, so that the woman isn’t completely wiped out by two work shifts by the time she gets to bed — I predict they’ll get a lot more action that way.
As for you only seeing “broken men” who are completely ruined by having to earn a living, and wives who are supposedly treated well despite earning a living AND working a second shift at home — you only have that impression because you don’t, actually, talk to women about it. You only talk to men — and of course, you only get one side of the story. What you “see” is stuff you see selectively.
As for whether or not housework is “easy” and automated: First of all, the very fact that you actually congratulate yourself for taking care of your own shit like a normal adult speaks volumes about male privilege. How many women have you seen bragging that they do their own laundry and don’t saddle their partner with it? Think about it. Second — it’s “easy” only as long as you have only yourself to take care of. Try taking care of yourself, a couple of small children, and an adult who, for all intents and purposes, is just another child, and a lot more troublesome in certain aspects — I bet your opinion of how easy and totally not time consuming housework is would change pretty quick.
This statement has two errors in it.
Error 1) Multiple divorces. The 50% divorce rate is a statistical shorthand that simplifies over the population in the US. Multiple divorces like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and my sister sceue the results up. (ie 5 couple get married, 1 couple divorces 5 times = 100% divorce rate regardless of the other 4 still married couples)
Error 2) Assumes that you are either incapable of learning from other people’s mistakes or less socially capable than 50% of the population.
I’m sorry, is the gold bug who got schooled hard complaining about other people ‘not refuting his points’? You haven’t substantiated the overwhelming majority of your claims to begin with, and you’ve barely engaged with anything of substance to begin with.
Why should we treat you as more than a capering monkey? She said, because she doesn’t like monkeys.
Brandon: You keep saying anyone can get the advantages by themselves.
So… Tax breaks aren’t in that. Because to do the trick you describe requires being able to afford reducing one’s working capital. Futher, if one is married, one has more money to sock away for that retirement account, because of the lowered taxes (and mortgages are easier to get. Mortgage lenders like to see people who have a legal obligation for the other’s debts. It reduces the risk of foreclosure, should one party decide his independence has been unreasonably intruded upon, so you can add that to the list of benefits: It’s not directly in the law, but they way the laws work is why it exists).
Estate taxes. It depends on how you are looking at passing things on. Spouse can get 100 percent, no matter how much it is.
If you have the interest in passing assets to others having a spouse doubles the amount of tax-free gifting one can do, and the same for inheritance.
Medical Proxies are notoriously hard to enforce. Being a spouse isn’t.
Spousal support: Again, only applies in a small number of cases, and isn’t limited to married persons.
I don’t understand your comment about marriage and crime.
Then again, I’m not a female, so your throwaway insult doesn’t make much sense to me either, esp. as it’s missing the point (which I must say you’ve been good at).
You haven’t been arguing that marriage is bad for Brandon. You have been arguing that Marriage is Bad. That it’s a scam, and any of the benefits which accrue to married people are easily replicated with individual contracts.
You then say marriage is really only good for women, and that it’s a way to fleece men.
When people point out that you are wrong about the latter two, you act as if they were contradicting the former. You don’t want to get married. We get that. Have at, live the sweet single life to the end of your days.
We Don’t Care.
But the rest of it… You’re wrong.
@Amused I never said that. Yes there are a lot of married couples that both work. In fact, the majority of them do (at least in my generation). But when you compare SAHM’s to SAHD’s the ratio is very much skewed to more SAHM’s. This mean’s that men are rarely put in a place of depending on a woman.
I am not devaluing “women’s work”. Some tasks are just easier than others. Filling a dishwasher or washing machine is not really difficult. Managing a bunch of kids is a pain in the ass and a constant battle.
Why would I settle for half the assets when I bought and paid for 100% of it? Seems like I am getting the raw end of the deal here.
Fair enough? Yes
In response to my friends sex lives. Most of the time they talk about their wives unhappiness and that they keep trying to do things to make her happy. One friend even went months without sex. The poor guy was thinking of going to a bar to have an affair because he couldn’t think of anything else that would make his wife want to sleep with him. I recommended getting a divorce because I hate the whole “using sex as a weapon” ploy…it’s nothing more than a show of power. This tells me she would rather hold power over his sex life than actually care and love him.
Being single, I can get more action any time I want. I haven’t signed my sex life away to one woman who can decide when and where I get to have sex. I control my own sex life and if one woman wants to use “sex as a weapon”, I can easily walk away and go find a woman that doesn’t see sex as a way to control men.
I don’t really have to talk to women to make an observation about married men’s behavior. These guys are just a walking paycheck with no passion or ambition in life. Even if I asked the woman, they will most likely go to there default answers “He didn’t help with the housework”, “He was a slob” “He wasted his free time ignoring me and playing Call of Duty”, etc…
I don’t need to be congratulated for taking care of my own life. I made that point because women often assume that men can’t or wont do it themselves. Most men in my generation are still single and most likely taking care of their life. The marriage age is increasing so more men will have time to learn how do these tasks and won’t rely on women to cook or clean for them.
This attitude was present in my grandfather’s generation. My grandmother died and he could barely make himself dinner. This behavior is slowly dying and hopefully on it’s way out.
The fact that you said:
“Try taking care of yourself, a couple of small children, and an adult who, for all intents and purposes, is just another child, and a lot more troublesome in certain aspects”
shows your animosity towards men. I believe Voip earlier made the claim that I thought of women as children and it was misogynistic to think this way. So what would you call this Amused? Man-hatred?