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.
So, you primarily object to weddings, then, not marriage.
Because nothing you’ve said has proven that marriage is a “dying, antiquated institution.” Denying the benefits exist doesn’t prove that marriage is dying. If you wanted to prove that, then you could cite the increase in co-habitation without marriage. Now that women are capable of providing for themselves, they don’t need to be married to someone for basic living conditions.
Of course, that doesn’t prove that marriage is dying, either, but at least it is topical to social trends, rather than why you personally feel marriage is a bad deal.
I have mentioned those things in previous comments tawaen. Later
“Some of the comments here constantly try and say that getting married is as simple as paying 100 bucks and just drop by city hall and wham! you get all the benefits. But who actually does that? Most people spend a healthy chunk of their earnings on paying for a wedding. There is the reception, church costs, wedding hall, food, DJ or band, booze (if open bar), formal wear for the wedding party, flowers, and on and on and on depending on how extravagant the wedding is. My fathers rather simple wedding still cost him 15K. Fifteen thousand dollars for a party…talk about a waste of money. Oh, and lets not forget the honeymoon.”
Brandon, I addressed this several pages ago. You might want to go read it.
Uhm…
/raises hand
Twice!
Um…some of the judges have a wedding a day at my work at $80 a pop. The brides sometimes wear nice clothes and the vast majority of them are not pre-weddings to have big fancy ones later. That means that there are 5 couples a week (actually it is more like five couples a day) that have zero interest in spend $15,000 for a perfect wedding.
Maybe your family wanted to have a geewhiz wedding but not everyone does. Hell my wedding reception will be at the beach because Costco has hot dogs at 50 a pack for $13. Plus the guests can go swim in the ocean and I do not have to be all entertainy.
I thought you loved your girlfriend and that your relationship was even closer than a stale, sexless marriage? I hope she’s OK with your implicit decision to walk out on her, whenever you feel like it.
Will her best interests ever factor into this?
Will she, in fact, even make the decision?
While I personally think marriage has no value, that doesn’t mean others don’t see value in it.
Yeah! Other people are free to do something that I know is totally idiotic!
Statistics don’t bear that out.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127234&page=1
I have mentioned those things in previous comments tawaen. Later
Yeah, and it was all refuted by other commenters. You just said it didn’t apply to your circumstances, and then ignored their data.
So, as the universe doesn’t revolve around you, it seems like you haven’t proven anything. Except that you’re kind of a whiny, self-centered brat.
We spent about $1500 on our wedding, including.rings, tux, and wedding dress.
Quakers spend… 250-1,500. Depends on how many people are invited to the potluck.
my parents got married in their backyard. my dad wore a blazer. my mom wore a sundress. a convenience store did the catering. they could have afforded to spend more, they just didnt feel the need to.
Some friends of mine just did that about two weeks ago – actually, pretty much exactly two weeks ago. They got married at city hall then had a backyard potluck party. It was awesome.
We got married in a bar. We paid a Unitarian minister $300 to do the ceremony and spent about 2K on catering. People bought their own drinks from the bar (which is how they made money) and my parents bought a case or two of prosecco for toasts. My dress cost about $100 and I’ve actually worn it a few times since then. It was a lot of fun and about what a party where you serve food to 60 people costs.
But as a woman, I’d clearly do or say anything to get onto that gravy train, amirite, ladies?
Oh, and VoIP just covered it upthread, but really – you would let your GF quit working to look after the children? You wouldn’t allow her to not have an income? Why do all of your statements assume that you are the sole subject and arbiter of all decisions?
Seems to me what you object to is not marriage but any situation in which you are not in total control. That must make you one swell boyfriend!
@Voip: The problem is that not all decisions are mutual all the time. I don’t think it would be good for me, her or the family if she became a stay at home mother because she would lose out on years in the job market. I think that is in the best interests of everyone. She might see differently, and she is completely free to make up her own mind. The decision that she ultimately makes while determine my course of action. I have no business telling or ordering her what to do. The only person I can control is myself.
So your notion that I am controlling my girlfriend is completely wrong. I let her make her own choices and if one of them is a dealbreaker for the relationship, then I walk. Life is short, I am not going to stay in a relationship that I don’t want to be in or doesn’t fit my lifestyle. It is better for me and it is better for her. I can go find a woman that wants to work and she can find a guy that doesn’t mind or likes the idea of her staying at home. Why settle for a win-lose when you can get a win-win?
@cynickal: Ya, what is your point? My life is not a headline for a news station. Also, married couples can only have sex with their partners. I tend to live a polyamous life so most times I have multiple partners.
@Katz: That has to be the dumbest thing you have said so far. I dislike the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan…that doesn’t mean I dislike our soldiers (in fact it is the complete opposite). It is perfectly legitimate to dislike a system or institution but not dislike it’s participants.
—————————-
What percentage of people are Quakers? Everyone is constantly bringing up the exceptions to the rule…that doesn’t negate the actual rule. And that rule is most people get married AND have a rather expensive wedding AND go out and buy overpriced diamond rings. This is the norm.
So here I am talking about the cost of getting married and everything that goes with it (which 95% of the time includes a ring and a wedding). And you are saying “HEY you can just go down to city hall, pay a hundred bucks and your done.” This seems eerily similar in concept to “Hey, you don’t have to get married and most of the benefits can be duplicated with multiple contracts”
You know what they both have in common? They are both alternatives to the social norm of getting marred.
“Also, married couples can only have sex with their partners. I tend to live a polyamous life so most times I have multiple partners. ”
Sorry, dude, you strike me as the type of guy whose other partners don’t know about your polyamousness.
@HellKell: Some do some don’t. Right now I am in a committed relationship so my GF knows my past. Girls that I have hooked up with, I don’t feel that it is any of their business what I do.
Ah, got it. Just a garden-variety cheater.
@HellKell: How does hooking up = cheater? If I am in a committed relationship, I am faithful (otherwise why be committed). If I am not in a committed relationship, then I date around.
Are you just trying to find insults on the flimsiest pretenses?
Also, married couples can only have sex with their partners. I tend to live a polyamous life so most times I have multiple partners.
Married people have sex outside their marriages all the time. The question is if their partners know and are okay with it. So long as there’s consent on all sides, I don’ care. No consent, big problem. If a person can’t handle monogamy or can’t get up the chutzpah to tell their partner, they’re breaking promises. And, if you like, the implied contract of marriage.
@KathleenB: Again another exception to the rule (mainly cheaters and swingers). If I took a survey of married women and asked “Would you be ok with your husband was sleeping with other women but informing you of it?” How many would say “Yes”. I doubt many would.
While there are exceptions, marriage is practically synonymous with monogamy.
Why do you give a fuck what other people are doing? Your girlfriend (Who I can just feel the love for) is the only one with an opinion on your sleeping around that matters for your relationship. Just because you aren’t married doesn’t mean there isn’t implied monogamy in this culture; if the only reason you think you don’t have to tell her you’re fucking around is that there’s no rings, you’re an asshat (I’m not entirely willing to rule out stupid, I suppose). If she’s okay with an open marriage, your marriage can be open. If she doesn’t want an expensive wedding either (Which is entirely possible, if she’s okay with no marriage ever), you could just have a cheap one. What everyone does is irrelevant (And not everyone has an expensive marriage; there are too many poor people for that, you ignoramus), compared to what you do in your relationship.
None of this matters, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that you don’t really want a close relationship with someone else, and that’s fine too, just… don’t tell us you’ve only got a problem with marriage and with a wife who isn’t employed outside the home (Because believe me, a stay at home mom? She works. A lot.)
@Rutee: 1) I am not cheating on my girlfriend 2) I was talking about having multiple partners while you WEREN’T in a committed relationship.
So lets wrap this up shall we:
Committed relationship = monogamy = cheating is bad
Just dating = not restricted to monogamy = cheating doesn’t really exist since there is no commitment.
Are you implying my girlfriend is cheap because she doesn’t want a to get married? I almost feel like I should be defending her honor based on that comment…but this is the Internet, so it’s kind of pointless. But I do take offense to your implications of no marriage = cheap.
“Expensive” is relative. A millionaire spending 10 grand on a wedding could be seen as cheap. While someone working as a manager at McDonalds making 30K a year is spending excessively at 10 grand.
I don’t really know what YOU think is a close relationship…but I have a close relationship with my GF and both of us are happy.
When did I EVER say that stay at home mothers don’t work? Certain parts are easy (like filling a dishwasher) and others are amazingly difficult (raising children).
You are putting words in my mouth and then getting upset over it. You are creating and fighting your own strawmen.
the dude whos spent pages and pages setting up this fantasy version of marriage just for the purpose of knocking it down, who sticks his fingers in his ear and screams ‘i cant hear you’ whenever someone points out from experience that his conception of marriage isnt universal, that dude is now complaining about someone else creating a strawman? lol.
@Sharculese: What fantasy version of marriage? People are waiting longer to marry, less people are getting married and divorce rates are about 50-50. What part of that is fantasy?
With fewer people getting married year after year, what would you say is the main cause of that?