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.
Horrifying isn’t it. How dare a man question the wisdom of feminism or any woman at all for that matter. I guess I don’t see them as human.
Rly? O: What do you see them as? :3
Yes, but NWO, you’re forgetting thousands of years of history again. Women have usually been forced to look after children, and pending technological advances which recreate the womb, women have also had to gestate children and give birth to them. Also, history, medicine, law (just as a few examples) have tended to be all about men. History that completely ignores what women were doing, men’s health, law that cannot fathom that a body can contain two people. Feminists are trying to redress the balance, given that women’s experiences have been so excluded from discourse. Therefore it makes sense to have charities which help women and children given that they are disadvantaged.
I know you think feminists control the world, but seriously, such a belief is premised on, well, not much.
Mrow. :3
I’m lost… what’s going on? 😀
NWO, fill me in on the Coles’ notes! 😀
I know you think feminists control the world, but seriously, such a belief is premised on, well, not much.
I’m sure it’s premised on all sorts of good evidence! 😀
Right NWO? 😀
Oh! XD My post inspired by you, is on the F Word now xD (another post is on Alas) 😀
So thx NWO 😀
I woke up this morning and was wondering where all the hits came from xD
DO DO DO DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DO DOOOOOOOOO
*crackle of thunder*
or lightning… or both xD
*kicks feet*
helloooo out there! we’re on the air! It’s Ami night tonight! 😀
“@Rutee: If you look when the Dollar was not controlled by the Fed, there was very little inflation and a dollar in 1860 was still worth a dollar in 1870 mainly because it was pegged to gold. The two largest increases to inflation are: The actual creation of the Fed and taking us off the gold standard.”
Not sure if trolling or just stupid. I just told you to go examine the world at large, starting with one of the moments in history that best illustrates the problem with commodity-based currency, and you’re still talking about just America, in just one time period. The price of gold is not static; tying currency to it doesn’t prevent inflation unless gold actually remains stable. Ditto any other commodity. Spoiler Alert: Those commodities are not actually stable.
“Gold has been used for over a millennium as a store of value (which is all the US dollar really is). It has served humanity well so I don’t think it seems appropriate to bash it when it has got us this far.”
Um, no, it didn’t serve humanity well. It served gold mine owners well. And right now, as it’s actually valuable for non-decorative uses, as a vital material in the creation of electronics; only a moron removes actually useful materials in the name of a ‘stable currency’ they won’t even get.
“Inflation may initially help people with their debts but then costs rise (more money in the system) and then wages need to rise to equal it out. Then if wages don’t rise, then everyone’s standard of living goes down.”
And if wages go up, then the value of debts goes down. I’m aware of the pitfalls; I’m also aware that horrible things aren’t obligated to happen. Further, the baseline foolish assumption of the economy for longer than non-commodity currency, that of a perpetually increasing market, requires inflation; this isn’t new. It’s a feature; talking about it like it’s buggy by default, without implicating the system at large, is either stupid or dishonest.
“Claiming inflation is helpful is what has caused America to be the debtors we are today. We don’t value saving our money because it is worth the most the minute we earn it. Hence it is more logical to spend the money as you earn it, thus creating a system were we live paycheck to paycheck and finance our lives on credit cards.”
Buddy, you talk to many debtors and poor people, do you? Living paycheck to paycheck is not some sort of calculated choice to manipulate inflation.
Yeah, I’m usually about that communicative just with my roommate and friends, let alone with a serious romantic relationship. Having to give someone a heads up about where you’ll be for a few days or asking if that is a problem for them is a pretty standard “sacrifice” in a committed relationship or even just when living/frequently interacting with someone, marriage aside.
Um…OK, NWO, but normally I only salivate for bacon, and only if it comes from my girl Beth.
*peers at NWO*
*don’t talk to many, that is.
10 minutes…
3 minutes…
4 minutes…
so far 11 minutes…
so he’s obv still checking…
:3
If you look when the Dollar was not controlled by the Fed, there was very little inflation and a dollar in 1860 was still worth a dollar in 1870 mainly because it was pegged to gold. The two largest increases to inflation are: The actual creation of the Fed and taking us off the gold standard.
omigod i was going to bust out some stats to disprove your horseshit claims about the stability of gold but then i realized that you think the 1860s are a representative period of american history where nothing out of the ordinary happened and all i can do is laugh
Gold has been used for over a millennium as a store of value (which is all the US dollar really is). It has served humanity well so I don’t think it seems appropriate to bash it when it has got us this far.
you seriously cant think of anything thats changed in the past thousand years? the newfound utility of gold as a conductive metal, the rise of a global economy, massive population growth, the collapse of barter as a major element of economics, electronic banking? is this all news to you? you know about the internet, right?
‘it worked for charlemagne’ is generally a pretty dumb argument. y’know what else worked for charlemagne? horses. better toss out your car, little lost goldbug.
Also, since you only care about Merikan History, Brandon, I’m pretty sure the Populist movements of the 19th century would have crucified you on a cross of gold for the stupid you’re saying about what commodity-based currency does for the poor.
@Anti-Lyn (otherwise known as Lyn)
“Yes, but NWO, you’re forgetting thousands of years of history again. Women have usually been forced to look after children, and pending technological advances which recreate the womb, women have also had to gestate children and give birth to them. Also, history, medicine, law (just as a few examples) have tended to be all about men. History that completely ignores what women were doing, men’s health, law that cannot fathom that a body can contain two people. Feminists are trying to redress the balance, given that women’s experiences have been so excluded from discourse. Therefore it makes sense to have charities which help women and children given that they are disadvantaged. ”
A feminist lie you’ve been indoctrinated to accept as fact. Women were never oppressed. Here are pretty much the occupations available for those thousands of years. Stone-cutter, carpenter, mason, shipbuilder, blacksmith, farmer, cook, seamstress, childcare.
Now in order to compete with the best men doing those physical labor jobs, there was no Big Daddy Guv to lower the standard so you only had to lift a 35lb brick or log or whatever. You’re equating the air-conditioned car/office work and completely non physical world of today with long ago. That is not the case.No one flipped open their laptop and huffed that it’s a little warmer in the office than you’d prefer. The jobs women were capable of were cook, seamstress and childcare.
And as far as education went, only the elite were educated and the women elite were educated as well where the peasant men weren’t. And for every little girl that was promised in marriage there was a little boy promised as well. Women were never oppressed, it’s a fucking feminist lie. It is all propaganda that’s been stuffed down your throat as if it’s gospel. Women were never oppressed.
@Katz: bummer…I don’t get the Free Space!
@Rutee: I don’t know I am not a lesbian.
Second, my viewpoint of marriage is not the same as everyone else’s (as we can clearly tell from this thread alone). I see it as a way to “break a horse in” while other men do not. It is fairly normal and socially acceptable to get married…is it not? My viewpoint is the different and a non-mainstream one. So I think it is perfectly ok to say that marriage is something that most people do…yet I think it is a bad move because of my whole domesticating piece.
I think it is a tool to reign in men, but other men might not see it that way or see it my way but still get married because they think the benefits are worth it.
I think I have a good relationship with my girlfriend. We spend time together, enjoy each others company, go to events, etc… Needless to say, I would be unhappy in a marriage, which would make my gf unhappy, which isn’t something I want to do.
NWO what do you consider real oppression? Which groups in modern society are oppressed to you? :3
The problem (again) is that I think ppl are using the same words for different meanings. :3
So yus… what does “oppressed” mean to you? What groups have been oppressed? What groups are currently oppressed? And what groups do feminists (or other anti-oppression activists) consider oppressed that are not? 😀
also i could have sworn that what made america a nation of debtors was when businesses realized that by extending cheap lines of credit they could let real wages stagnate while maintaining the illusion that the standard of living was rising
adorably, the only people who seem to be fooled by this are internet libertarians see e.g. reasontvs five hundredth ‘if they have cellphones, how can they be poor’ video
Brandon, if you enjoy your girlfriend’s company and like her so much, why do you object so strongly to taking care of her if something happens to her?
Here are pretty much the occupations available for those thousands of years. Stone-cutter, carpenter, mason, shipbuilder, blacksmith, farmer, cook, seamstress, childcare.
What culture and period of time are you talking about? :3
“I don’t know I am not a lesbian.”
And yet, you felt the need to announce to all women what their intentions for marriage are. How’s that working out for you, by the way? Let’s see.
“Second, my viewpoint of marriage is not the same as everyone else’s (as we can clearly tell from this thread alone). I see it as a way to “break a horse in” while other men do not. It is fairly normal and socially acceptable to get married…is it not? My viewpoint is the different and a non-mainstream one. So I think it is perfectly ok to say that marriage is something that most people do…yet I think it is a bad move because of my whole domesticating piece.”
Look, this weaselly bullshit might work with wishy washy MRAs, but it ain’t gonna fly here. You’re making specific claims about it’s intent and utility. Specific claims that are not born out if you actually speak to mothers, wives, and girlfriends. That’s not what it’s for. Again, I don’t care if you don’t want ot get married; it’s probably for the better, you seem to be a terrible person. But you’re specifically trying to say what marriage is for here.
“I think I have a good relationship with my girlfriend. We spend time together, enjoy each others company, go to events, etc… Needless to say, I would be unhappy in a marriage, which would make my gf unhappy, which isn’t something I want to do.”
Well, I can believe it if you’re dating someone as amazingly self centered and ‘spontaneous’ (read: lazy in all forms of relationships, not just intimate love ones), but… what you said there? It’s not connected to marriage, at all.
9 minutes >_>
Stone-cutter, carpenter, mason, shipbuilder, blacksmith, farmer, cook, seamstress, childcare.
Um, the oldest profession seems to be missing…