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.
I wish to disavow any connection with the FatMan quoted above.
I don’t blame you!
MRAs: Because everything bad in the world is women’s fault. Somehow.
And yet another MRA problem that could be solved by MOAR FEMINISM.
Truer words, ozymandias.
The Telegraph is not a reliable source, so of course that got down voted there. They don’t believe in reliable sources, only their own crazy tube of truth paste.
If feminism was created by communists, why isn’t China a feminist society?
In China usually the groom’s family buys the house while the bride’s family furnishes the place. I wonder if the women get to keep their furnishings after the divorce? Also, the women getting the house in a divorce was thought to be a deterrent for men from having (and flaunting) mistresses. Now if the husband takes a mistress and the wife leaves him for cheating on her he can get the house.
Here is a brilliant idea…don’t get married. Then these laws will not affect you. You don’t need the government to “sanction” a romantic relationship to love someone. Marriage breeds co-dependency for men and women. We should be promoting self-sufficiency for everyone.
More people who don’t want to get married. I see that as progress.
Just remember: it’s the feminists who want only male children. Or something.
“Here is a brilliant idea…don’t get married. Then these laws will not affect you. You don’t need the government to “sanction” a romantic relationship to love someone. Marriage breeds co-dependency for men and women. We should be promoting self-sufficiency for everyone.
More people who don’t want to get married. I see that as progress.”
What if people truly love each other and want to get married? Also, people manage to be sufficiently independent even while they’re married (various commentors are happily married and still think for themselves for one).
Marriage does not equal being a mindless drone for the other. The only people who put forth that idea are cranky traditionalists and MRAs (or are those two the same thing? :D)
@redlocker: Who says you need marriage to love and devote yourself to someone? Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between you, your partner and the government. You are free to love someone, have children, have a family, etc… all without the state “morally approving” it. Marriage basically turns love into a business deal. Which is an absolutely absurd idea and concept.
If you are married, more power to you. It is none of my business to say what you can and can’t do. Personally, 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. But since it is legal, everyone should be allowed to get married.
There is a difference between being a mindless drone and co-dependency. You can be intelligent and still be forced to rely on someone.
Marriage gets a couple over a thousand legal rights that the couple otherwise would not have. You say marriage doesn’t matter… until you need power of attorney, visitation rights in the hospital, the right to your partner’s Social Security or pension…
Any country with a lopsided population of men is probably a dangerous place in the long run for the government. The present pseudo communist government is just the latest dynasty.
Brandon, I don’t know anything about Chinese marriage laws except the bit mentioned here, but in the US, being married often allows you to share, say, insurance benefits while two people in love who simply cohabitated wouldn’t be able to. Last I checked, it also affected hospital visitation rights: two gay men in love might not be able to visit each other in the hospital.
tl;dr: “Don’t get married” isn’t going to solve all the problems with the institution of marriage.
Also, Brandon, do you think “being in love” and “being partners” is mutually exclusive?
@ozymandias42: 1) you can make anyone your power of attorney. 2) visitation rights should be changed. People should be able to record in their medical records who they want to see in the hospital regardless of marriage. (but you are correct that it is a benefit of marriage…a policy of discrimination though) and 3) If you are self-sufficient, (which is the goal I think people should try and achieve) then you wouldn’t need their pension because you would have your own.
@Molly Ren: You can name anyone your “insurance beneficiary”. So I can leave all my stuff to my girlfriend if I wanted to (and she would be entitled to it since I signed the insurance papers).
Again, the better fight isn’t fighting for gay marriage, it’s fighting to name loved ones as “approved to see me in the hospital”. We need to decouple visitation rights and marriage completely. If I want to see someone that isn’t immediate family, I shouldn’t be told “no” by hospital staff.
Let’s make all the benefits of marriage available to the non-married. This way everyone will be treated equally and people don’t have to fight Christians over gay marriage. I see my idea much easier to achieve and would most likely have far more public support.
@Molly: I see people entering into a bunch loads of relationships. Some like monogamy, some like casual flings, some are romantics, etc,,, I think they can be mutually exclusive and mutually inclusive depending on the relationship one has.
1) you can make anyone your power of attorney….You can name anyone your “insurance beneficiary”. So I can leave all my stuff to my girlfriend if I wanted to (and she would be entitled to it since I signed the insurance papers).
Until the day something like this happens.
@VoiP: Marriage = legal contract. Power of Attorney = legal contract. Insurance claims = legal contract.
If they can do it to insurance beneficiaries…they can do it to married couples.
Brandon wrote, “3) If you are self-sufficient, (which is the goal I think people should try and achieve) then you wouldn’t need their pension because you would have your own…”
Unless you get sick while married and can’t work, or have a job that doesn’t give you benefits, or decide to be a stay-at-home parent, or…
Brandon:
The Communist Party in China, especially in the rural areas, will punish your for co-habitation. Harshly. That’s the GOVERNMENT ITSELF coming forth to punish you; not to mention most people can’t possible survive without a duel income to support themselves (so being single and rockin’ it in their own pad is impossible).
Just… learn2china.
Meh, Brandon, maybe we’re just talking past each other? We’re poking you because in the first comment you made it wasn’t clear if you understood that there were certain legal rights that came into effect upon marriage that single-but-living-together people wouldn’t have. Now it’s clearer that you do, but for a while there it definitely wasn’t clear whether you thought these issues didn’t matter or whether you thought there needed to be changes made.
I’d still like to see you talk more about “Marriage breeds co-dependency for men and women. We should be promoting self-sufficiency for everyone.” I wasn’t able to understand your answer.
people don’t have to fight fundamentalist Christians over gay marriage
FTFY. Don’t lump me with them, thanks.
I am not entirely sure why people can’t just get a bunch of contracts bundled up in one institution called “marriage” instead of having to fill out all the contracts individually. What if you forget one? What if you can’t afford a lawyer?
Also, I was completely America-centric in my last comment, which is kind of inexcusable, given we were talking about China. 🙂