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.
@Magpie: Because it is both a US issue and a gendered issue. When you exclude 51% of the population from being obligated to die in wars…that to me seems unethical.
Brandon; You said you wouldn’t allow your partner to stay at home. That’s kind of erasing their agency. If your partner decides to give you that power, fine, but acting like you have the right to order people around is not generally the way to a woman’s heart.
I think of it the other way around, when you obligate 49% of the population to die in wars, that seems unethical.
I don’t actually know what Selective Service is, are you obligated to die?
Brandon, I continue to be a different person from Rutee. We say totally different things in totally different ways. Your inability to distinguish us just makes you sound like you’re too dismissive to even bother noticing who you’re talking to.
That, again, makes no sense. Feminists oppose the selective service for both genders. We are not going to be demanding to be added to something that we oppose in the first place-it defies logic.
Now if you want our help on not having the draft, that is different and probably you could get feminists to support your efforts (they will not do your work for you.)
Also, you were claiming that you were only saying that you think marriage for you is wrong when you, in fact, were claiming that all marriage is wrong. “but if you want to get married you can…even though I think you are wrong (i.e. stupid) for doing so unless you are a girl since it means you are taking men for a ride.”
That is the problem and you are still unable to get it because you assume that what you are not saying is what you are saying.
I think Brandon thought we would be so blown away by the Amazing Awesomeness That Is Brandon that we would immediately be persuaded, and he would have his own little pet army of long-winded self-centred goldbugs. And then he could sic us on whatever other blogs he makes a nuisance of himself on and it would be just like that movie where Crispin Glover trains an army of rats to murder his boss, only online.
Oh, honey. Aren’t you just the cutest when you act all tough and Clint Eastwood-esque?
He’s about the fifth dude I’ve run across here who seems to think that if he just tells us how horrible we are, we will all see the light and become antifeminists. Never seems to occur to them that others have tried. And tried. And tried. And then they wonder why we get pissed off at the eleventy-billionth rehash of the same shit.
…and still wrong. In fact, I’m waiting for Brandon to say anything correct — about men or women or feminism or sex or marriage — at any time; considering the walls of words he’s plastered all over the thread I thought the odds were decent, but clearly I was wrong.
Am I in the kind of conversation where “bulldyke c|_|nt,” “big, bleeding, vagina,” and “you dumb fuck” are genteel parts of a “civil, controversial debate”?
I know, you didn’t say it, your imaginary hero MRA who represents you said it. My bad.
But it doesn’t indicate a great willingness to reach across the aisle, as it were, and agree on things like “if you think nobody should be forced into the military, it’s more important to protest against the fact that men are than that women aren’t.”
I’m reminded of the dudez who think that lesbians can be converted to cock by a Good Hard Boning ™ delivered by a Manly Man(tm) – because that isn’t rapey at ALL! No matter how many times they’re told ‘Ew, go away, I don’t like cock,’ the dudez keep coming back, convinced that all they need to do is display their Manly Might ™ and all the women will give up their sapphic desires (except when he wants them to, ’cause lesbians are HAWT!).
@Elizabeth: So you oppose Selective Service, but because women don’t have to register…your work is already done. And since it only applies to men, you won’t actively do any of the work, but you might provide “moral support”. So basically I was right…it’s a men’s issue.
So when did you want help on the wage gap? If you don’t really care about issues that face men, why should we care about issues that affect women?
Just because I personally see something as stupid, that doesn’t make that person stupid for doing it. I think lots of things are stupid but I can at least understand the reasons why people do, buy or participate in something. To me Bungie Jumping = stupid. Bungie Jumpers = “hey I guess they find it exhilarating”.
@kristinmh: I am just stating an opinion. I am not trying to persuade anyone, nor do I really care if you or anyone else adopt my position.
Why would I care if you bought gold? I wont profit from it. If you don’t want to own gold, so be it. Also, time will tell if goldbugs are right or wrong. So I think it is pretty naive to just come out and say gold isn’t worth investing in when it has had some big gains in the last few years. That’s like saying Cisco wasn’t worth investing in in 1997.
Also, how is being a goldbug being self-centered?
Also, I am fucking adorable. 😉
Brandon: We are not required to address issues you find important. Nor are you required to address issues feminists find important, but you’ll get short shrift on feminist sites. You don’t like the Selective Service. Good for you. Neither do I, but I don’t go around demanding men do something about it RIGHTTHEFUCKNOW or I’ll never, ever think they’re worth anything. Which is kinda what you’re implying here.
See here is the kicker Brandon-feminists are not going to work for men. If you oppose the draft, we will help you but we will not do the work for you. Do you understand that?
And it is not going to help by demanding to include women in the draft to stop men from being drafted because feminists oppose BOTH genders being drafted. It, again, defies logic.
And the idea that saying an action is stupid does not mean the person engaging in that action is not stupid is just…illogical.
@Bagelsan: Oh I am sorry…I can become blood brothers with someone and get HIV and kiss some random girl and get oral herpes. I there is a 2% chance of getting HIV from saliva. But there is a reason it is called “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”. You know…sex being the number one and biggest mode of transmitting diseases. So unless you are sharing needles, kissing people with open cold sores or sleeping with someone with STD’s, your chances of getting one is negligible at best.
Here…the sky is blue. Or are you going to argue that “some days it is grey or orange or red”
@KathleenB: Ya…converting lesbians is dumb. Are you comparing me to a overly nutty christian that thinks gays can be cured by straight camps? Christians can be funny sometimes.
Hey, if you want to lick pussy…go for it. I don’t give a shit. But two girls kissing IS hot. What’s better than one naked woman? Two naked women!
@Holly: Yes lots of MRA’s are retarded. They get overly emotional and utter the dumbest shit sometimes. Really, who gives a shit if MGTOWer’s want to ignore women and fuck robots. There is certainly enough misogynistic material on the internet to keep this site going forever.
But just like I agree with parts of feminism, I also agree with parts of the MRA movement. Mainly, father’s rights, shared parenting, alimony for life (even though it is rare nowadays). Those issues are either not important to feminists or feminists are actively opposing them. So the idea of men don’t need to become MRA’s but feminists is incredibly naive.
No, you remind me of a very annoying person who keeps spouting his opinion and acting like we should take it as gospel. It don’t work that way.
@Elizabeth: Well there you go. If you are not going to care or work towards helping men…why should men work to help you?
So are you saying that men shouldn’t give a rats ass about women since they wouldn’t be working in men’s best interests?
To me that is like saying “I don’t give a flying fuck about you or the shit you have to deal with in life…but can you do me this one favor” If someone said that to me, I would say “Absolutely not!”
It’s not illogical when you have a “to each their own” attitude. I think lots of things are stupid, but it really isn’t my business to say it is stupid for others. That is their choice to make…not mine.
@Kathleen: Not Christian…so gospel it is not.
Brandon: So because the monolithic feminists who all think alike and all concentrate on the exact same thing all the time should pay attention to your issue, or we’re not worth your time? Good to know.
Brandon: You’re continually ignoring my point. It’s getting annoying.
In other words: do our work for us feminist women or we will not care about your causes.
I stated quite clearly that feminists will help men out but we will not do the work for men. So if men want to get rid of the draft by organize protests, file lawsuits, letter writing campaigns, etc, then feminists will probably march along, join in the protests, file amicus curiae briefs in support of the lawsuit, write letters, etc…but they will not do the work of organizing the protests, letter writing campaigns, file the lawsuits.
That is what I am talking about-you are obviously of the opinion that unless the feminists are doing the work for the men, their issues should be ignored (just as they would be if they spent their time working on men’s issues so your scenario is win win for you-feminists should be ignored if they do not do the work and if they do do the work, their issues will be ignored. Either way, feminist issues are ignored which is obviously what you want.)
As for your assertion that your claiming something is stupid is not telling people that their doing the stupid action shows they are stupid…that is just stupid.
@Elizabeth: My question was…if feminists are under no obligation to care or work towards issues that affect men. Why should men care or work towards feminist goals?
Feminists want men to care about the wage gap, preventing rape, abortion laws, Title XI, VAWA, etc… But why should we if you could couldn’t care less (meaning paying lip service too) about issues that affect men.
Brandon, we don’t expect men to lead the feminist movement. (In fact, we really don’t want them to.) We just want them to support it.
Well, vice versa applies for pro-male issues. We’ll support you, but we’re not going to initiate the movement or be the biggest supporters.
@Holly: And that is the reason lots of men don’t like feminists. Because some (most) exclude men…but somehow you want us to support you. That doesn’t seem right at all.
If you don’t want men to be a part of the feminist movement, that is fine. But I think it is a little odd where you want men to support you. And I don’t see why men would support you when you purposely say “we don’t want you and your voice is meaningless here”. I would say “I guess I am not wanted, so you are on your own”
If someone makes Holly’s MRA-poop thing into an actual comic, I will run it as a post.
I don’t see how that’s inconsistent at all, Brandon.
Women should lead and men support on women’s issues. Men should lead and women support on men’s issues.
That’s a single standard if I ever saw one.