Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women gloating misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy reddit

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

697 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

OK, Larval NWO (aka Brandon), we get it. You are a weasel. Apologies to weasels!

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Lyn: I could actually talk to you. At least you try and see what I am trying to say. Make your opinion known without insults and even disagree with me respectfully.

And I can even see and understand the whole responsibilities/benefits comment.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: @Cynical: umm…adoption.

@Elizabeth: Ah Texas. Still adoption.

That, son, isn’t an answer to the question. That’s an issue of forcing someone to rear a child. You asked about bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is about being forced to bear the child; bring it to term, be pregnant

You asked, they answered, you were wrong.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Aw, Lyn, he likes you. Doesn’t that feel great?

Brandon, do you have any idea how patronizing, condescending, and totally off-putting you are?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: You say you are an equalist, but you also say you won’t work against your interests as a man. You then dismiss all the benefits you are presently enjoying (i.e. being able to live the independent lifestyle you presently enjoy; and think others who choose to get married instead are stupid for doing), and insist that until one issue becomes top of the feminist agenda, you won’t lift finger one to stop them.

Ever wonder why women have more of those part time jobs? It couldn’t be that they are denied the full-time jobs in favor of men could it? Nah… that would never happen.

Promotion bias could be attributed to men being more aggressive with asking/demanding raises or better learned negotiating skills.

It could also be that when women try to aggressively negotiate for promotions and raises they are seen as “demanding, and bitchy”.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Rutee: He was also dishonest about his actual reasons for opposing the draft. He made complaints about being forced to kill/die for the country.

Then he admitted to being a 19D, which is army speak for a Cavalry Scout. He spent years in the role of being forward of the FLOT (Front Line of Troops) in the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) so he could, Find and Fix, the enemy location, and the Tanks/Infantry/Helicopter Gunships/Air Force “Fast Movers” could come in and blow them away.

One does that by shooting at them, if one can safely do so.

So while he may have a moral objection to the draft, as a form of involuntary servitude, we can say it’s not that he is a Conscientious Objector, who will only serve in times of direct threat to the nation. He volunteered. He was one of A.E. Houseman’s, Army of Mercenaries only he tried to hide it, and dress his objections to the draft as moral in a way he thought would be more pleasing to his audience, while hiding his active willingness to kill.

Rutee Katreya
9 years ago

@Rutee: I am getting tired of this. We aren’t even really debating anything. We are just bitching about each others sources. The point being is statistics can be easily manipulated to “say” whatever peoples biases are.

Bullshit. Your ‘source’ linked to one utterly useless talking point (It’s not questioned that men dominate the most dangerous jobs; those aren’t the jobs that actually generate the real disparity in wealth between men as an aggregate and women as an aggregate, but nice try) and the second corroborates what I said about a gender gap in STEM hiring. It’s not an academic paper, it’s motherfucking popular reporting. Only one of these is important. You can’t actually look at data objectively, I know, but you didn’t link to a real source; you linked to a dude making assertion. I linked to motherfucking studies.

So, neither one of us is going to accept each others sources, so debating this is asinine.

I know you have a problem with reality brandon. If you were still my target I wouldn’t call you out for the piece of human garbage you are. You are no longer the intended beneficiary. You are a slimeball who’s opinion is less than worthless to me. You may do what you wish, and claim what you wish, continuing with standard libertarian dishonesty as you are wont to do. I will continue to crush your stupid assertions. It’s abundantly clear you never wanted an honest discussion, why do you think I still care about you, specifically?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: I guess it is because you see the world as women and can’t possibly see how things could possibly affect men. If you have been a woman since you were born (no trans) then you just can’t even see what struggles and demands are placed on men…because you haven’t lived as one.

Dude, get over yourself. I’ve been a man all my life… this is such nonsense.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: @Lyn: I could actually talk to you. At least you try and see what I am trying to say. Make your opinion known without insults and even disagree with me respectfully.

Honestly… you’ve not earned much respect. Recall what I said about your tone, your buried content, and the way you engage in deniable slurs… I’m not the only one who see it, and it’s not winning you points.

You are getting more respect than you deserve, at this point. You move goalposts, refuse to look at evidence, dismiss what evidence you deign to glance at; and then say comparing a newspaper article to several actual papers is merely playing games with statistics.

You make declarative sentences, and then when they are quoted back at you, say you are having your words twisted. You tell people they have rights they don’t, privileges they don’t and you are the one suffering.

Then you get your skivvies in a twist because they use harsh language.

Aw.. diddums. They hurt your widdel feewings when they called you, the Cav Scout, a fucking idiot.

I guess it’s true what they say, the truth hurts.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Hellkell: Yes, I am going to throw out all my former opinions and ask Lyn to marry me. We can have kids and she can be a SAHM if she likes.

Ya, it is really patronizing to disagree with people without hurling insults like stupid and idiot at people.

@Pecunium: Again…the institution of marriage is foolish to enter IMO. That says nothing about the people that enter it. I have issues with public education policies that doesn’t mean I hate teachers. I don’t like the wars being fought, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the soldiers that are fighting it.

Maybe women like working part time work and they made that choice themselves. Is their any right answer that doesn’t blame men for every problem women face? Oh yea…anyone with a penis is wrong and an oppressive asshole.

Ya, and weak willed, introverted men are often called pussies…what is your point. Being demanding is the cost of getting promoted. What do you want more? Being called demanding or getting more money? There are no “consequence free” decisions. Every decision has its pro’s and con’s. Men that become managers often feel alienated from the staff that he was once associated with because he now has to tell them what to do and the same level of camaraderie is gone.

I wasn’t being dishonest. I joined the Army over 10 years ago because I didn’t have any direction in life and life was pretty boring. I thought being a Scout would be interesting and thrilling. Also, we were at peace when I joined so while I knew what the job entailed, we weren’t fighting a war.

Also, I voluntarily entered into that arrangement. There is a big difference between willingly accepting part of your job is shooting at people and forcing people to fight a war they think is immoral and force them to potentially kill people. My decision was of my own choice…I wasn’t coerced which is what Selective Service would be if the draft was instituted again.

Lyn
Lyn
9 years ago

Hellkell – ‘great’ isn’t really the term I’d use to describe it 🙁

Also, Brandon, thanks for the compliment about how comprehensible my argument was – but I’m wondering if you plan to actually respond to my points and agree and change your position or disagree? That might facilitate more of the productive debate you say you’re after.

VoiP
VoiP
9 years ago

You just bumped yourself up to the third worst poster on this forum, and I’m not sure whether you’re actually better than NWO, because you are consciously aware that women are the actual victims in society,

Are you including DKM in your list? Because he is a White Nationalist who literally yearns for the day when most women are killed, leaving a small coterie as slaves/source DNA for a project to breed more submissive females.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Brandon, I was talking about your overall attitude. You really are a fan of selective reading. Also, apostrophe abuse.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Lyn: Just that I can understand that women do have to actually deal with the nine months of pregnancy so they should get more of a say since it is their body that is carrying the child.

Personally, I think a lot of these issues will dissolve when a newer form of male birth control comes out. I think men shouldn’t completely rely on their sex partners for birth control and hopefully men will have an option soon. I think it would certainly get rid of men that say “She tricked me”…since you can just ask “Did you take your SpermKiller4000?”.

This will give men for the first time a way to control when they want to become a father. Thus it would be his own damn fault if he became a father when he didn’t want to.

Lyn
Lyn
9 years ago

I agree that there should be more contraceptive options out there – it would be great if we could all have more ways to avoid the unwanted babies thing.

The whole contraception thing is actually pretty fascinating – the fact that many women (mostly non-white women or women from lower socio economic groups) were experimented on with contraceptive pills that had epically awful side-effects, many underwent forced sterilisation (eugenics in the US – really uncool), single women were denied access to it, and that the focus on coming up with contraception for women was based on the thinking that women were sexual gatekeepers with all of the responsibilities and few of the rights – all of these things sucked and were based on anti-feminist thinking that wasn’t about bodily autonomy for women at all. I mean, the pill has been shown to decrease muscle-mass – can you imagine guys volunteering to use a contraceptive method that made building muscle harder? But making women weaker, that’s no big. Grr.

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

More contraceptive options for men would be a great thing! Although, men can use condoms now if you want to say “it would be his own damn fault if he became a father when he didn’t want to.”

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

Condoms can break and it just acts as a barrier. Contraceptives like RISUG actually destroy sperm. So even if the condom breaks…nothing. I still think they should call it SpermKiller4000.

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

The pill / implant can fail, too. Belt and braces is the way to go 🙂

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

This was your exact request:

I asked, if a man could force you to have a child against your will.

I responded quite literally with a scenario that can happen-a man could take a woman in a remote area of the country, Texas for instance, and remove her travel options. Because she is dependent on him for travel, she lacks access to birth control (such as the Pill) if he refuses to take her to a clinic where she can obtain it. In theory, she could have an IUD that she obtained prior to this move but they can and do fall out. If he refuses to use a condom, she will get pregnant. He, once again, has control of the travel and therefore she cannot obtain an abortion.

That can and does happen. In fact, in the case of an abuser, the woman does not have to be in a remote place to lack access to transportation. He can also sabotage her birth control methods. Ergo, she becomes pregnant.

Because less then 20% of counties in this country lack an abortion provider, she could easily be in a section of the country where she is unable to get an abortion. And again, in the case of an abuser, the woman will not be able to escape to get the abortion.

So she has to carry a fetus for nine months-against her will.

You then responded with a flippant and dismissive response to a woman being forced to have a child against her will:

@Elizabeth: Ah Texas. Still adoption.

As if the previous nine months did not exist for this woman who is forced to have a child she does not want.

Then when I followed up with the fact that men have taken away from women reproductive choice by de-funding Planned Parenthood, you immediately complained I twisted your words when I responded exactly to what you had said with a real scenario and followed up with a case of policy being forced on women in New Hampshire. And posted links to back up what I was saying.

You were and are wrong about women not possibly being forced to have children against their will.

So how was what I said at all anywhere near “twisting your words” to mean something other then they do-what possible meaning besides pregnancy could “have a child” mean? And since when does public health policy not impact how a woman’s reproductive life will go? And finally, what kind of respect do you expect to get when you refuse to be honest in your debating style?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: A woman who is called a bitch is seen as, “difficult to work with” and doesn’t get promoted. That’s the point.

You made a big deal about the killing and the dying. You didn’t make it an argument about the actual problem of forcing people to give up years of their lives. You made it seem that you objected to the killing and dying.

But that’s part and parcel of the way you don’t say what you think your saying. You have insulted people who think marriage is a good idea. You’ve called the men stupid, and the women freeloaders.

You’ve said you agree with the ideas in that comic. The one that ended with calling feminists a bunch of foul names.

You’ve said you won’t help feminists, unless they put your interests ahead of theirs.

You’ve said you will never support anything you see as diminishing your present status, which means you are against most of the actual aims of feminism, since men have the preferred status in most of our society.

You’ve said, in the face of laundry lists to the contrary, that the only thing feminism has been good for is more men getting laid.

And you have, consistently, ignored any number of responses to things you’ve said, in preference to complaining that, in light of all that I just said people have been incivil to you.

They’ve not. Civil does not mean something which might be possibly painful to hear is never said. Civil means treating people as rational human beings. It means not insulting them casually (which you have). It means not misrepresenting their positions (which you have; you said I was defending marriage, when I was pointing out you are wrong about the possibility of replicating it with private agreements; because many of those agreements are only recognised/enforceable, if one is married).

In short, civil /= polite words. Civil = interactions in good faith/honestly performed.

I know you will say you have acted in such a manner. I disagree.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

I asked, if a man could force you to have a child against your will. Someone countered with some government legislation about anti-abortion laws which was outside the scope of my question. I then brought up the idea of adoption. Someone gave some retarded “body agency” (sic) answer (which wasn’t even the question). I didn’t ask about your body agency. I asked for one example in which a man could say “I am forcing you to have that child even if you don’t want to”

What a gem. Bodily agency is “retarded” apparently.

And Brandon I’m still waiting to hear how I, as a single woman, can order you to have a child? Do I have to do it in all caps to make it an official contract? BRANDON YOU MUST BE A FATHER like that? 😀

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

Of course! The magic of ALL CAPS can solve all Brandon’s problems! Marriage contract – small letters, register for the draft – small letters. Suddenly he has no obligations!

And BRANDON YOU MUST BE A FATHER is very difficult to read in any other voice than Darth Vader 🙂

kristinmh
kristinmh
9 years ago

Yeah, you can say that it’s unfair that a woman can force a man to become a parent while a man can’t do the same. But once again, Brandon is in denial about how mammals work.

This unfairness is more than mitigated by the unfairness of pregnancy. The uterus-bearer has to undergo the fatigue, nausea, discrimination in the workplace, forgetfulness, mood swings, ligament pain, heartburn, general physical discomfort of late pregnancy, changes in skin, hair, metabolism, inability to take most medications (it’s ragweed season, people, and all I can take is Benadryl and use a neti pot…I am about ready to murder someone), unwanted belly-groping by strangers, endless doctor’s appointments, invasive and possibly unnecessary interventions, not to mention the whole “giving birth” thing, followed by breastfeeding which is taboo in most public places and is not accomodated by most employers, but if you give up and use formula then you’re OMG the worst mother ever. The non-pregnant partner has to…what? Zie can be as supportive or unsupportive as zie chooses. Zie can be there for all the appointments and console the pregnant partner during crying jags, assist at the birth, change 50% of the diapers, take late-night bottle feedings, and be a good partner and parent. Or zie can do nothing at all. Zie has a choice, while the pregnant party does not. I can’t say, “I think I’ll opt out of having my feet swell a shoe size!” but my husband can say, “Meh, I don’t feel like going with you to the midwife this time” (not that he would, but he could).

So yeah, it’s not fair that cismen don’t have uteri. And it’s really, really unfair that the biological heavy lifting of reproduction is done by ciswomen (and transmen who retain their uteri). But guess which one gets Brandon all upset?

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
9 years ago

The one that he does not have total control over.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Pecunium: As if male co-workers can’t be seen as “difficult to work with”. What do they do? They deal with it, fight with management or get a new job. Sometimes if you want to get ahead in life, you have to do unpopular things. What do you want everyone to do when someone gets promoted? Clap and cheer. Some will, some won’t. You can’t make people feel differently about you. What are you trying to change? Preventing people from thinking you’re an asshole or a bitch…ya, good luck with that.

Maybe I should have been clearer. Forcing people to pick up a rifle and shoot at people is immoral. People voluntarily doing it isn’t totally immoral since they are acting themselves without a third party forcing you to do it. It isn’t the draft that is the big issue…it is the government force that I disagree with. And the fact that men are the only ones required to sign up for Selective Service.

Again, if I criticized the Dept. of Education that doesn’t mean I think teachers are stupid. Yet again, I am repeating myself and this premise is being ignored. People have free will to do what ever they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone physically or deceive them. I also think parts of the Federal Government are flat out useless…that doesn’t make me un-american.

Get it…criticizing a system does not mean I am criticizing the people within that system. If people want to get married…so be it. It is not my place to tell them what to do. And when a man says “I’m married”, I don’t automatically think “You stupid twit”. It’s more like “Whatever makes you happy man”

And even if I thought they were stupid for getting married…that doesn’t make them stupid. It just makes that decision stupid. A persons intelligence isn’t based on one decision.

I didn’t call women freeloaders. I just pointed out that the benefits of marriage benefit women more so than men. This doesn’t really have anything to do with gender-neutral language in the law, but by observing the real world itself. If the marriage dissolves the breadwinner is sometimes forced by the courts to support the non-breadwinner. This process can be avoided in most states by not getting married (my preferred choice), marrying someone that earns roughly the same as you (not guaranteed to last forever) and you or your partner not removing themselves from the job market by becoming a SAHM/F

I also mentioned the comic was exaggerated and full of insults and that it wasn’t a complete representation. I was trying to make the point that if a non-feminist shared an opinion that goes against feminist dogma, that person is mocked (and not just on ManBoobz). As if feminists have a perfect world view and any criticism of it makes the criticizer stupid.

It’s not like I am actively blocking feminist policies. I am just one working class stiff that goes to work, hangs out with friends and my girlfriend, sleeps and does it again the next day. If some news headline made the claim “Women’s pay completely equal to men’s” I wouldn’t get in a tizzy and start complaining. I would just say “that’s nice” and get up and go to work.

My main point was that the feminist movement seems hostile to the majority of men yet they still want those men to vote, advocate and generally help feminists enact their policies. I find this contradicting and rather illogical. Why would men want to help an organization or movement that doesn’t want their input?

Civil just means to act in a mannerly way. It doesn’t mean you have to completely agree with everything that someone says. Sharing controversial ideas respectfully (e,g no name calling) isn’t the same as being disrespectful and uncivil. I have not called anyone here stupid, bitch, cunt or any other slur. If someone has inferred an insult from something I wrote…it wasn’t my intention.

I think you will disagree with me as well.

Magpie
Magpie
9 years ago

Brandon, mate, stop digging. Why don’t you come up and play on the new ‘cheer up MRAL’ thread? 🙂

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: re women and negotiating. The thing you are missing is this, a man who asks for things is seen as, “a go getter, forceful, dynamic, someone who gets things done.”

He asks for a raise, and he is more likely than not going to get one. Maybe not as much of one as he wants, but it’s not seen as a black mark.

A woman who does the same is, “demanding, bitchy, hard to work with, someone who isn’t a team player.” She isn’t anywhere near as likely to get the raise, and is more likely to be shunted to a new dept., and kept out of management positions.

Those two different outcomes make the cost of asking for a raise riskier for women, which suppresses the rate at which they make them. It’s a pretty straightforward case of rewarding men, and punishing women; for doing precisely the same thing.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: Re your not insulting people who get married:

Marriage breeds co-dependency for men and women. We should be promoting self-sufficiency for everyone.

All people who marry are breeding co-dependency, which you describe as unhealthy. No insult there.

Marriage basically turns love into a business deal. Which is an absolutely absurd idea and concept… I am anti-marriage for anyone (straight, bi, gay, trans, etc…). I see it as a pointless institution that binds people together thus limiting their freedom.

You repeated this theme later:

@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.

Yep… nothing insulting about calling people’s marriages pointless business deals, and an absurd idea and concept.

Marriage is also the most limiting relationship around. What about swingers, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc… .

But when people point out that relationships aren’t limited to one:one binary pairing, you tell them they are speaking of marginal outliers, and dismiss it as not-relevant, and go on about how “committment = monogamy but monogamy should not = marriage. In that you manage to insult those who are married, and non-monogamous twice.

You equate people not agreeing with you as defending marriage:

@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”.

Not feeling the same way as you do is not the same as being pro-marriage (which is, I think, what you mean when you say, “defending marriage, which aren’t the same at all, but I digress).

I have not, actually, defended marriage. I have said your positions on it are 1: daft as regards replicating it, and 2: based on a sexist view of marriage.

Those are completely independent of my views on the institution.

I didn’t call women freeloaders. I just pointed out that the benefits of marriage benefit women more so than men.

No, that’s not what you did.

I guess now I see why so many of the commenters where defending it…you girls get a lot of perks.

That was after a long list of things you said were of no, or negative, benefit to men.

I see it as a way to “break a horse in” while other men do not.

Which of the partners is the horse in this equation? From you comments it seems to be the man (I think it is a tool to reign in men). Too what is he being broken?

I didn’t call women freeloaders. I just pointed out that the benefits of marriage benefit women more so than men.

The proper phrasing is, “If there is a divorce, and one partner has been supporting the other”. You might even have put it in the personal, “If I am supporting my partner, and we get a divorce, I, as the supporting partner, am obligated to support her.

You didn’t. You chose to make it a gendered issue, by saying it was by virtue of being a man. You kept at that by saying, “97 percent of alimony is billed to men”, while ignoring that the vat majority of supported partners are women.

Again, falsely implying this is a gender issue, and one in which men are treated unfairly. It happens I do think this is a place in which men are are treated unfairly, but not by the law. I think the societal pressure which make it hard for men to be the stay at home partner need to be fixed.

And don’t try to tell me you meant it to be an issue of gender neutrality and phrased it poorly (which is the basis of your facile defense of the, lenghthy, rant you went on about the draft, about which more later) because you defend you reasoning, consistently with the refrain, I didn’t call women freeloaders. I just pointed out that the benefits of marriage benefit women more so than men.

So all in all, you’ve insulted people who are married, or think marriage a good thing. You’ve insulted, and/or marginalised people who are in non-dyad relationships, and you’ve made a case that the only people who benefit from marriage are the women; because they get to break men like horses, and get all the perks.

And you wonder why this isn’t greeted with paeans of agreement.

Then there is some of the basic underpinnings of your position both of which, in the terms you have presented them(i.e. marriage rates are falling, and the probability of divorce makes it a 50/50 gamble), are false.

Marriage Data from the CDCSummary

According to these analyses, the majority of men and women will marry at some point: The probability that men and women will marry by age 40 is over 80%.

So that to the marriage is dying out.

Divorce rate Data, from DivorceRate.org

What is the current divorce rate in America?
It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct…”50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce.”
The above statement about the divorce rate in America hides all the details about distribution, however.

You said you were 29. Assuming you were to get married this very minute, the odds of your marriage ending in divorce are between 11-20 percent (the 25-29 cohort is at 22.3 percent, the 30-34 cohort is at 11.6. We can, from the shape of the curve adduce that as age increase the rate of divorce declines, and make a reasonable conclusion that the actuarial odds are closer to 11 than 22, and probably in the 15 range for you, if you were to marry today).

Interesetingly, earlier marriages also tend to fare well. The rate for marriages entered into under 20 is 11.7 percent.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Fuck… too much HTML. Sorry.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Brandon, honey, feminists aren’t hostile to the majority of men, just the ones who treat us as less than human.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Things one catches the second time around:

Brandon said: What percentage of people are Quakers? Everyone is constantly bringing up the exceptions to the rule…that doesn’t negate the actual rule.

But everytime we point out the rule to you (pay for the license, pay the officiant) you keep talking about exceptions to the rule. It may be more honored in the breach, but it’s still the rule.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Pecunium: Whatever dude. If you want to see it as being insulting go right ahead. I see it differently and I am getting tired of trying to point out the simple premise of being against an institution or system but not be against the people within that system. They are not the same thing, yet everyone here wants to conflate the two.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: About the draft: You say, now, Maybe I should have been clearer. Forcing people to pick up a rifle and shoot at people is immoral. People voluntarily doing it isn’t totally immoral since they are acting themselves without a third party forcing you to do it. It isn’t the draft that is the big issue…it is the government force that I disagree with. And the fact that men are the only ones required to sign up for Selective Service.

This is what you said, then

I just find it odd that we could be forced drafted into a war and half of the population is free from ever having to go…I wish I had that perk.

@Rutee: Ya…getting forced by your government to pick up a rifle and start shooting people is “fairly minor”. It is easy to say that since you will never be forced to do something like that.

@Elizabeth: Because women should be forced to sign up for selective service because men are forced to sign up (and we lose out on financial aid if we don’t…oh and it is illegal to not register). Equality means doing all the shit work men do as well as having all the perks. I also don’t really have an opinion on it per se, just that I can see why both sides approve and oppose Selective Service.

Which is is, strong opinion, or no opinion?

You never made a case for the abstract problem of gov’t force. Every statement there includes you personally being drafted. It wasn’t an impersonal question.

You keep complaining about people “sawing your words to mean whatever they want.

If it happens with one person, or with the occasional comment, that’s one thing. When it happens with lots of people, or regularly with comments, that’s another.

We can’t read your mind. We can only read your words. If you want those words to be reflective of your mind, make them clear.

It certainly doesn’t help that you, consistently (and I just re-read every word you’ve put on this thread) mis-read other people. Sometimes in ways which are at blatant odds to the direct response to direct questions you asked (see the sub-thread on being forced to have a child, which you interpreted to mean, “forced to rear a child for 18 years”, as opposed to “forced to carry a pregnancy to term”, which is the question you actually asked; esp. as the issue of bodily autonomy had already been raised: to avoid quibbling, here is the direct question you asked, @Bagelsan: OK in what possible scenario can a man order you to have a child in the US?

Not, “rear a child”… but have)

You’ve also, with some regularity, made sweeping claims of fact, e.g. @Holly: And that is the reason lots of men don’t like feminists. Because some (most) exclude men, which demand support. Given that you just, in a passive-aggressive way, just insulted feminists, I find this bit, from a little before that @Holly: Again I beg to differ. It seems people here have taken my words and saw them as an insult, when that was not my intention. as pretty amusing.

If you don’t want people to take your words as insulting, don’t include insults in your words.

So really, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for your claim of being mis-parsed. I’ve read all of your posts. You seem to have a grasp of English. You seem to know what you want to say. I therefore have assume, since this is a medium which allows for reflection, it’s not the back and forth of conversation, you have to type it, and decide to send it, that what you say, is what you mean.

Because to do otherwise, is unfair to you, and to everyone else. Trying to suss out, “what you really mean”, is a mugg’s game. It is the very thing you say you see happening.

It’s not. You are either failing to be clear, or you aren’t.

Being charitable, I will grant, at this point in time, that it may be some of both. But the burden to fix that, so that what you say is clear, is on you.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: @Pecunium: Whatever dude. If you want to see it as being insulting go right ahead. I see it differently and I am getting tired of trying to point out the simple premise of being against an institution or system but not be against the people within that system. They are not the same thing, yet everyone here wants to conflate the two.

You said being married was equivalent to being a wild horse, reigned in and broken… and you don’t see that as insulting to men who get married?

That would be the disconnect in our ideas of civility. You think it means not using, “rude language”. I think it means not being insulting.

You think saying a piece that destroys straw-feminists,and calls them c**ts and bitches is fine as an illustration of, “typical conversation with feminists” and shouldn’t be seen as 1: insulting, or 2: an accurate assessment of your attitude towards women.

I call that stupid. You want to dish that sort of crap, you have to expect to get some response, and; all in all, the response you have gotten is probably better than you deserve.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

I am getting tired of trying to point out the simple premise of being against an institution or system but not be against the people within that system.

Lol! How do you think feminists feel?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: All that, all those words of yours, words which conflated various things with being married, or being female; all the other people who saw the same thing, and all you can do is repeat the idea that you love the sinner while hating the sin.

Sorry. Didn’t work the first time, and it certainly isn’t refutation of the lists above.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Pecunium: And I can find statistics that help make my points:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23465208-marriage-hits-lowest-rate-since-records-began-almost-150-years-ago.do
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/JEP_Marriage_and_Divorce.pdf

Practically every link on this page:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=619&q=marriage+rates+decline&oq=marriage+rates+decline&aq=f&aqi=g1g-j1g-m1g-b1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=21l9362l0l9663l33l31l3l3l3l0l622l6719l4.6.4.4.2.4l24l0

Article on young adults choosing not to marry from WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575519871444705214.html

Statistics are easily manipulable and even data within the same organizations can conflict with one another.

I stand by the quotes I made on Selective Service and the draft;

1) As long as men have to sign up women should also have to sign up too.
2) Selective service should either be abolished or men and women are treated the same. But the status quo shouldn’t just stay until we get rid of Selective Service (if that ever even happens).
3) Getting rid of Selective Service is a much harder fight than the fight to make it gender-neutral. Hence I see the latter is more achievable. It is easier to change a government policy than it is to remove it.

About marriage:
I personally feel that getting married would be breaking a horse or domesticating me and only me. Other men might not see it that way…and that is fine. Some men want the married life and that is their personal choice. I might think that decision is in bad judgement, but I don’t get to decide what is best for the other person. I support people doing things that will make them happy as long as they aren’t physically hurting others, stealing or trying to defraud others. If getting married will make you happy…go for it. But I can’t see it possibly making me happy and the benefits that marriage would grant me are rather insignificant from my POV.

In the end, it is government force that I disapprove of most. I have no problem helping people, but I despise a third party saying “You must help them” or “I am ordering you to support someone”. It doesn’t seem sincere or that you want to genuinely help…you are just being ordered to do it.

kristinmh
kristinmh
9 years ago

I personally feel that getting married would be breaking a horse or domesticating me and only me. Other men might not see it that way…and that is fine

And we feel that statement shows you to be a sexist douchebag, but other sexist douchebags may not see it that way.

Really, what else is there to say?

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

I have no problem helping people, but I despise a third party saying “You must help them” or “I am ordering you to support someone”. It doesn’t seem sincere or that you want to genuinely help…you are just being ordered to do it.

I don’t have a problem with some mandatory helping, personally. That’s why I’m fine with paying taxes that go to social services and support total strangers even without some kind of “thank you” in it for me. The important thing is that the person is helped, not that you get to feel all warm and fuzzy about it. And if you volunteer to be “ordered to do it,” for instance by marrying, then it’s basically still voluntary, isn’t it? So I don’t see the problem. It sounds like you’re sulking over being told what to do even if you were already planning on doing it — that’s pretty childish.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@kristinmh: The million dollar question is why do you think that.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Bagelsan: If you want to pay more in taxes, you can do that. I am sure the IRS will accept donations.

I am perfectly capable of making donations to causes that I think are important and that help people. I don’t need the government to reach into my paycheck and take that money.

Getting married opens you up to laws that only affect married couples. There are already way too many laws on the books. It seems strange to want to voluntary be held to more laws than non-married people.

I am not advocating marriage so I am not planning on marrying any time soon (or ever). So it’s not like I made a choice and then regretted it. So I don’t see it as childish. If I did get married and regretted it…I would just get a divorce.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

So it’s not like I made a choice and then regretted it. So I don’t see it as childish.

No, what’s childish is that you don’t want to be told to do things you already want and intend to do. That reminds me of kids who stubbornly refuse to do anything they are instructed despite desperately wanting to, and end up sulking and making themselves miserable — except for them it’s a developmental stage, and for you it’s just silly.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

I am perfectly capable of making donations to causes that I think are important and that help people. I don’t need the government to reach into my paycheck and take that money.

People, as a group, are not capable of that. When society is totally dependent on charity to support people those people end up royally fucked and starving in the street. Hell, that’s still the case even with a modicum of government assistance; so how are you currently stepping up to help those people? Obviously their needs are not fully met, so are you contributing extra to make up the difference?

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Bagelsan: What exactly do you think I want to do?

Are you making the claim that I want to help people but don’t like to be told to help people…and that is childish.

Well for one, ordering people around removes that persons ability to choose for themselves. The government isn’t asking you to help and giving you the choice to say yes or no. They are telling you exactly what you will do.

Second, the person might be ordered to “help” in a way that makes that person uncomfortable.

Third, by being ordered to help you also have no say in where and how that help gets used. What if I wanted to donate to cancer research but am being ordered to donate to the Red Cross. While, the Red Cross is still a respectable organization, I would rather my money go to preventing cancer. I am denied that choice.

Basically being ordered to do things is demeaning and strips you of your individuality and the ability to make your own choices. It treats you as just “a thing” that can be exploited and used for resources and not an actual human being who has their own lives and is free to make their own decisions.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Bagelsan: I volunteer at a food pantry that provides food to low income people and serves lunch to local schools that don’t have a cafeteria. That is what I do to help people and make a difference. I do about 8-12 hours a week. That is what I feel I can do without it interfering in other parts of my life.

Also, people as a group voluntarily donate billions of dollars to charity. So it seems perfectly reasonable that people can and do contribute a lot of money to organizations that help people.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Basically being ordered to do things is demeaning and strips you of your individuality and the ability to make your own choices. It treats you as just “a thing” that can be exploited and used for resources and not an actual human being who has their own lives and is free to make their own decisions.

But your original objection was to being “forced” to help your girlfriend with stuff like medical bills — you seemed pretty emphatic about wanting to do that, but weirdly resistant to being told to do so by anyone even if they only told you to do things you signed up for. That’s not “exploitation” it’s just redundancy. :p

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Bagelsan: It’s not just the ordering issue…but the stipulations surrounding it. As a hypothetical, the government could order me to pay the whole medical bill…but I only feel like 25-50% is what I can give without it interfering with my other obligations. Thus by making me pay the entire bill, the government is imposing unnecessary hardship on me.

1 12 13 14