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.
That would be the Rulebook For People Who Don’t Take Ass-Stupid Risks With Their Health,’ or ‘simple common fucking sense.’
@Kathleen: That is what birth control and condoms are for. Words don’t offer the same amount of protection as a latex condom.
Brandon: There is sexual contact for which a condom is not protection. And neither condoms nor birth control are 100% – my nephew is proof of that. It just seems… I know it would be an awkward conversation, but I would think that the awkward would be balanced by the lack of risk to one’s health.
@Kathleen: Without sounding as a crazy fundie…the only way to 100% guarantee you do not get an STD is abstinence. If you are not willing to do that, then you are going to be taking on the risks of sex…period. Condoms and birth control are nothing but risk management tools.
I mean honestly, do you really think that everyone would just freely volunteer if they had a STD? For some reason, I highly doubt it. I don’t see men or women just saying “I have HPV!” right before intercourse.
Brandon, honey, this is why you need to hang around more sex-positive feminists. 🙂 I mention my STIs (HSV I, aka cold sores) before sex. If I test positive, I will tell my partners beforehand.
Yeah, what Ozy said. (I managed to pull a back muscle scooting away from a spider last night, so I’m not at my best today)
@Ozy: And where would these elusive sex-positive feminists be? This site? Judging from all the insults hurled at me…I think I will pass on your suggestion.
Plus, most feminists fail 3-5 minutes into a conversation. I can typically sense it by their tone of voice and their body language. If they start bashing their current or former boyfriend…that is a nice red flag as well. The more man-bashing they do, the quicker I want to get the fuck away from them. If they even utter “Typical man” or any of it’s variants…I walk away right then and there without saying a word…even if she is in mid-sentence.
Both extremes are bad though. While insecure, whiny or princess-like girls are a turn-off, so are the girls that act like men. If I wanted to date a man, I would be gay. It’s nice when a girl shows a little femininity instead of just being derisive and argumentative all the time. And I find the majority of strong but feminine girls aren’t feminists. At least in my travels.
Reading that comic, those are not feminists. They are an amalgamation of the various stereotypes that have been foisted onto feminism by those who do not like feminism.
The final thing the guy says can be readily shown to be false about the draft-it was an all male court (Justice O’Connor was appointed after the 1981 term) that told women we could not be drafted. Multiple women’s rights organizations filed amicus curiae briefs in support of including women in the draft here in the United States for that case (Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981))
The rest of the comments he and the so called women make are inaccurate as well (and at one point he blames feminists for what conservative women do, say and think.)
Kind of hard to not fail if you refuse to listen to what a woman has to say Brandon.
@Elizabeth: Well, I beg to differ. Even on this comment thread, some people voiced their opinions, while others hurled insults at me just for expressing a POV that differs from them. Katz alone called me: idiot, idiotic, a fucking moron, and a few others. One commenter here (I forget since it was so many posts ago) even took part of a sentence I wrote about my parents raising me right and said they didn’t. So not only did these people insult me…but my parents as well. So from my perspective…that comic is more truthful than not.
In response to the draft issue. Even if NOW and a few other organizations filed Amicus curiae…what was that? 30 years ago! Feminists fight and fight for the wage gap, but they don’t put in the same amount of effort (or anything close to that) for the draft. To me that is just paying lip service.
I listen to them unless they start spewing a bunch of man-hating crap. Why would I want to be with a woman, who fresh out the gates is already bad mouthing men…to a stranger no less.
Your perspective is that people were rude to you…after you repeatedly failed to respect their opinions or even listen to what they had to say.
So yeah, they are going to stop being polite after you refuse to listen. You show them respect, you get respect.
Also, there has been one piece of legislation regarding equal pay since 1964-that would be the Lily Ledbetter Act of 2007.
So the idea that women are constantly battling the issue is…basically because we have pointed out the wage gap that persists even after nearly fifty years of Title VII. The only piece of legislation that involves the draft is the Universal National Service Act of 2003 and it included women. SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
So start your own fucking blog and whine about women there. There are women here. We have opinions. Your being an asshole is not going to change the fact that we are women (and men) with mostly feminist opinions. What the hell did you think was going to happen when you came into a feminist space and started spouting off about how horrible feminists are? A mass conversion?
@Elizabeth: I don’t really take people being rude to me personally (come on…it’s the Internet). And to the best of my knowledge. I didn’t flat out yell out vulgarities at people. I expressed a POV that differed from a lot of people. That isn’t insulting, that is stating a different POV.
I respect peoples opinions, but some people kept on saying I was insulting married couples when I was criticizing the system itself not the people that use it. Some commenters saw me criticizing marriage as if I was attacking them personally. Which I wasn’t. I tried to clarify, they still said I was attacking them and their marriage. Which again I wasn’t. So from my POV it has been state an opinion, opinion gets misinterpreted, clarify that opinion, have that get misinterpreted, and so on and so on. Ad infinium.
The thing is though Brandon-you were (and are.) And you refused to listen when they explained, in detail, how you were doing so. You keep claiming something that you say you are not claiming.
So had you said “you know, I do not see how marriage would benefit me.” “oh well here is some info that shows it does benefit.” “Eh, still not for me.” Then yeah, you would have a point. But once again…that is not what you were (and are) saying.
Then you went into some things that were, well quite frankly, misogynistic about your expectations for your girlfriend and any children you may have. Which, to your credit when called on it, you changed to not be so horrifying.
That comic is awesome. Here’s the script for one of my own:
—
Gaggle of blithering MRAs – WE ARE DUMB AND LOVE HORSEBUTT! LOL!
Quiet, reasonable feminist – Gosh, guys, I’d really like to have a discussion here about what we both bring to the table.
MRAs – POOP WE EAT POOP YUMMY POOP!
Feminist – Guys, please, listen…
MRAs – NOW WE PUT POOP ON THE HORSEBUTT!
Feminist – I give up! MRAs are unreasonable people you can’t possibly talk to, and terribly unsanitary besides!
—
Brandon, do you see why this is not a helpful persuasive tactic? Creating literal cartoons of your opponents may stroke the ego of the people on your side, but to the people on the other side, it’s ludicrous. You’re insulting us for things we don’t do, disagreeing with things we don’t believe, and then patting yourself on the back for an imaginary rhetorical victory over imaginary stick people.
This site’s slogan is “misogyny: we mock it.” If you don’t want to risk being mocked, don’t show up on Manboobz. I assure you, I’m much nicer in real life.
I have never called someone a “typical man” or bashed an ex-boyfriend; neither have most of my explicitly feminist friends. Most of us actually call out the “typical man” people for stereotyping. Are you sure you haven’t confused feminists and women?
@KathleenB: So I am bad-mouthing women because I don’t want to be around women that bad-mouth men?
I didn’t say feminists were horrible…just that I am not attracted to them most of the time. That isn’t whining about women….that is stating a sexual preference and why.
@Elizabeth: My point was that if you search through the most popular feminist websites: Feministing.com, Feminist.us, Jezebel.com you will find pages upon pages of articles trying to rally the troops to fight the wage gap, but only one or two articles even discussing Selective Service. And from what I have read from those blog posts is that feminists oppose Selective Service for everyone (which is fine) but we don’t really want to make women have to register until they can overturn it. Basically men are stuck registering until any advocacy group can end selective service. Or even worse…the draft ISNT a women’s issue but a men’s issue since it doesn’t affect women.
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.
If you oppose having anyone register, why would you agitate to include women? That makes no sense.
You could always look at Selective Service as a US issue, rather than a gender issue?
Where by katz you probably meant Rutee? Here’s a courtesy link to every comment I’ve made in this thread; you’re welcome to go verify that the strongest term I’ve used is “ye gods.” Your inability to distinguish between people with vastly different argumentation styles and different custom gravatars is not helping any case about who’s reasonable and who’s not.
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-7/#comment-54139
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-7/#comment-54164
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-7/#comment-54206
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-6/#comment-53991
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-4/#comment-53441
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-4/#comment-53473
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-4/#comment-53477
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-4/#comment-53483
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-4/#comment-53506
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-4/#comment-53515
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53367
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53382
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53390
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53399
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53407
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53412
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53414
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-3/#comment-53415
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/22/dudes-republic-of-china/comment-page-1/#comment-53089
Just to quickly note: Brandon has confused me with (I think) Rutee. I posted a longer comment but it’s in moderation because I linked to every comment I’ve made in this thread.
Brandon could look at Selective Service as an US issue instead of gendered, but that would entail getting off the cross he’s nailed himself to.
@Elizabeth: My opinions haven’t really change in regard to my expectations…I just had to word them correctly for this audience. In real life, I tend to be a very up front person and I don’t like to beat around the bush. For whatever reason, I have to use an entirely different vocabulary when commenting her because the same idea here can either be held with hostility or approval…all depending on how I word it.
So:
Idea 1 = worded bluntly = misogynistic
Idea 2 = same as idea 1 = worded more delicately = not misogynistic
@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. Yet, a few commenters have intentionally threw insults at me (e.g idiot, fucking moron, etc…). I have never just flat out called anyone here a bitch, cunt or a feminazi. While this doesn’t bother me personally, I see it completely different. There is a difference between getting offended at what someone wrote vs flat out calling them an asshole, moron or any other name calling vulgarity.
I have done my best trying to engage people here that don’t resort to name calling: you, Elizabeth, Molly and a few others. When it comes to Rutee and Katz, I simply find their remarks funny.
It is perfectly fine to have a civil, controversial debate and to express everyone’s opinions. But the first sign that you have lost the fight is resorting to personal attacks.
@Ozy: That is implying that what I am saying is misogynistic. One time I wrote that I wouldn’t approve of my girlfriend being a SAHM. Some called this misogynistic. It wasn’t until I said that she still gets to make her own choices and be her own person that I was “sort of redeemed”
So the idea of me disapproving of her being a SAHM wasn’t misogynistic until I had to clarify that position. Commenters here latched on to the phrase “wouldn’t approve” as me oppressing my girlfriend. So the idea wasn’t misogynist, just the wording…which to me seems rather trite.
I then said that if she made a choice that was a dealbreaker for me, I would leave the relationship. I was told by one commenter that was “emotional blackmail”. I then had to make a lengthy clarification stating that staying with someone even though they made a choice that is a dealbreaker, means that both people will end up unhappy. So it went from “emotional blackmail” to “not staying in a unhealthy relationship”.
In the end, I don’t consider myself a misogynist. Women are free to do whatever they want. I am not in the business of holding women down (for one, it wouldn’t work and two, that just seems fucking exhausting). But just like women are free to make the choices they want to make…so am I.
@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.