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.
(is a female feminist running a masculist blog. Just saying)
(I know but I’m trying to make it super simple here.)
Don’t get confused! While most feminists are perfectly happy to have “men” as a group join them, whether or not you are wanted is an entirely different matter. Gender aside, having a little bit of skill in reading comprehension and being able to argue with precision and accuracy is a plus. Lots of men make delightful and valuable feminists, but you’re still not doing well — you, Brandon, the individual of unimportant sex and gender — if this debate is some kind of tryout for getting feminists to like you.
Just because most feminists don’t “hate men” doesn’t mean we have to like every man in existence either. For example, I love puppies — but even they have the occasional individual who’s just kind of a dick (the kind of puppy who can barely unclamp from the tit long enough to mutter “bitches ain’t shit” …if you want to explicitly include MRAs in this puppy metaphor. :D)
@Ozy: While I agree with more of what you write compared to sites like Feministe and Feministing, I wouldn’t call your blog a masculist blog. Even the name No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? just sounds condescending as if you are mocking issues that are important to men.
I just see your blog as a feminist blog with a slight twist.
@Bagelsan: Why did you put men in quotes?
So, I can only become a feminist if I think, act and behave just like everyone here…ya…I guess I will never be a feminist then.
Brandon, we’re not like dying to have you on our side here. We weren’t really expecting you to turn into a feminist.
Which is really okay. I, at least, am not that bent out of shape over the fact that one particular guy isn’t a feminist. I’m not going to break my butt trying to convince you. Go forth and be a not-feminist, I guess, and try and have fun with that.
Brandon: Yes, I’m sure everyone here was waiting with bated breath for the pronouncement from you Dudley Keyboard. We will all commence to to reordering out lives to fit your strictures right away.
At least we can all agree on something
Because I was quoting you, doll. Pretty standard use of the things. And I was simultaneously scare-quoting the charmingly naive way you treat “men” as a monolithic group that can be said to collectively like or dislike anything, or that can be collectively liked or disliked.
Not “just like” — I only want “as well as.” And yes, then you still will never be.
@Bagelsan: Naive, like saying heterosexual men like having sex with women…that kind of monolithic thinking. 😉
@Bagelsan: Be still my heart, what will I do in life if I don’t become a feminist. Oh yea, work, make money, have boatloads of sex, travel, make new friends…and basically have a good life.
Well, for someone who doesn’t care what we think you’re spending an awful lot of time here arguing with us!
And being a goldbug doesn’t make you self-centred, of course. You are self-centred because you seem to judge things only through the “what’s best for Brandon” filter. You don’t want any responsibilities towards another human being and you don’t see any problems with that, and if that’s not cold and self-centred I don’t know what is. The goldbuggery just came after it in the sentence, because lists of three things are much funnier that lists of two or four.
FTFY
@Kristinmh And why should I be responsible for another human being? They should be responsible for themselves.
Or are you saying that I don’t like to have obligations placed on me by a third party to take care of someone financially? What do I look like…that persons parent? Adults need to take care of themselves and I find it selfish of someone to ask that they be taken care of when they are perfectly capable of doing so.
I actually find that idea insulting to women…as if they can’t possibly take care of themselves. Which they very much can. Especially in today’s world. I might have agreed with you if this was the 50’s. But it isn’t and women can go to college, get a good job and support themselves. That concept doesn’t make me self-centered…it makes me see women for what they are…my equal.
He confused me with Katz? Add “Fucking illiterate” to his list of idiocies. I see now he’s also played the “If a feminist anywhere didn’t support my cause, and by support I mean do the whole thing, I don’t have to ever listen to feminists!”
Listen, sweetcheeks: The discrimination against women is substantially worse than that affecting men. Women are disadvantaged substantially more than men in nearly every arena. That your primacy has cost you in 2 ways that lead to institutional bias in fairly minor aspects of your life (The draft, and ~10% worse sentences in criminal courts) is simply not as big a deal as the overwhelming list of shit women have to put up with, solely on institutional levels. We aren’t obligated to fix your smaller problems first, especially since if we’re going to be remotely honest, the draft is probably not going to come up until the global balance of power is totally skewed by the removal of weapons of mass destruction. Now, you’re not obligated to specifically move first to fix women’s problems either, but I expect at least some measure of support from people who aren’t asshats, and by that I at least mean voting to end such jackassery. And if folks promise to end the selective service, or reduce criminal sentences, I’ll vote for them (Provided there are no anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-PoC, anti-gay, etc riders), because I’m not an asshat. Hell, I’ll probably help on the activist level too, but I’m sure as hell not doing it all for you; it’s not in me to work on the smaller problems first.
Your stupidity knows no bounds. Yes, after you by definition remove all the men who don’t just want sex with women, and all men who don’t want sex, you are only left with men who want sex with women. That doesn’t mean men are a monolith, it means definitions can be awesome.
You’re not a super special awesome island. Neither is anyone else.
You can’t ever claim ultimate responsibility for another human, but you can easily decide it’s your responsibility to help them. You seem to have foregone that too. Why should you? See about not-islands; others will for you. Reciprocating? Kind of a thing.
You didn’t restrict yourself solely to the financial, dude. You denied all responsibility, period. You said being expected to consult your girlfriend before making plans was a horrendous obligation, for fuck’s sake. Maybe you shouldn’t claim financial responsibility, but it’s not the sum total of responsibility.
Who said anything about women, specifically, besides you? I take it upon myself to help all my friends, male and female, when I can, which isn’t always.
You’re fucking stupid. Women still face massive bias against them in economic terms. It’s why feminists keep harping on the wage, promotion, and hiring gaps. Men still expect them to take responsibility for the lion’s share of the housework. We should be equals, but we’re still not treated as such yet.
@Rutee: Ya…getting forced by your government to pick up a rifle and start shooting people is “fairly minor”. It is easy to say that since you will never be forced to do something like that.
Telling men that either you don’t want them in the feminist movement or that you can only join and be valuable if you behave in a manner you deem appropriate, and then expecting men to support you is highly illogical.
That’s like me saying “women are not welcome in our movement and we don’t want you…yet can you do us this big favor to help us end the draft”. If any group was that hostile to you, would you want to participate or even pledge support to it? I think not.
You are basically saying the MGTOW equivalent of “Women suck…but they should help us prove that women suck” Sounds like if you joined the MGTOW movement, you would be working against your best interests…which you would be.
If you don’t want men in the movement (or the handful of men that will jump through your hoops) that is fine. At least it would be understandable if you were saying “We don’t want most or any men, we can do it ourselves so we don’t need your help or support”
Going it alone is admirable, but alienating a group of people then expecting or demanding their support is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It’s like asking a die hard Democrat to support a Republican.
If you believed in equality, you would fight to end the draft. Equality just isn’t about fighting for the benefit of your own gender…it’s about making things equal. And Selective Service unequally benefits women as it stands now.
So, discrimination = fight fight fight. Benefits = oh well, the men can fight that one.
It’s must be nice to cherry pick your issues so they only help women. I thought feminism was about equality. I guess not. And you want men to support you…pfft
Brandon: So… “they did it too” is your excuse for being an ass? Really, you need to find a more honest set of partners.
I’ve had two STD scares in my sexual career. One partner had another partner show up with Cllamydia. She called me to tell me I might have been exposed. This was after we’d had an unpleasant break up.
Another partner and I had bad chemistry. Really bad. I got a yeast infection. I went to the clinic, got tested, got a prophylactic shot, and called her.
Turns out there was no STD.
Why? Because that’s what decent people do.
Your definition of judging is bizarre. I mean really. I don’t give a shit, at one level, if someone like blood-play. I don’t care if someone has HSV, or a partner who has it; so long as I can make an informed decision.
If someone chooses to hide those facts from me. That I care about. The same way I’d care if someone had seizure narcolepsy, and didn’t inform me before I let them drive me someplace.
I know few people that start a committed relationship, then have a talk about sleeping with multiple partners. The women I know and have slept with, the majority of them automatically imply that if you are in a committed relationship, you are only sleeping with that person.
Again, you need to see a better class of person. In the going on 30 years I’ve been sexually active I have never had a partner whom I was going to be seeing on a more than casual basis who didn’t share with me her ideas on monogamy/non-monogamy.
This may be that I was more proactive than you. It may be that I spend more time in places where non-traditional relationships are common. But my experience, when someone wants you to not fuck anyone else, they tell you.
Regarding feminists: Are you saying that ManBoobz is like all the other feminist sites you’ve been to? Or are we not feminists?
That cartoon… strawman. That you think it’s typical of interactions with feminists… telling.
You don’t like my opinions. Fine. But saying that feminists are harpies, and the like (which is what that comic you claim represents the discussion you, and your friends typically have with feminists) does border on misogyny. It’s an important distinction, one you seem unwilling to look at (much as the one between my saying lead was a better investment vehicle than gold, not that lead is a good basis got a commodity backed currency… by the by, take a look at the rates at which non-commodity currencies recovered from the Great Depression, as compared to commodity currencies).
The issue isn’t that you don’t date feminists, it’s why.
It is just like the conversation earlier, sure you can get married for less than 100 bucks, but the majority of people do not do that. They choose to get married and have a big wedding to go along with it. The examples people are bringing up are in the minority not what the majority of Americans actually do.
This is what we are talking about.
You say, Marriage is expensive. We say, Only if you make it so; the actual costs are pretty small.
And you say, “Yeah, you could do that, but most people don’t. Which means getting married is going to cost you a lot of money.”
Which is nonsense. Just as you choose to gamble your investment dollars on gold, and spend you entertaiment money on travel, or HDTVs, or what have you, those people choose (you know that thing you are doing by not getting married) to spend money on a big party to celebrate something they think is important.
Which is their right.
@Kathleen: That is what birth control and condoms are for. Words don’t offer the same amount of protection as a latex condom.
Which is the part you ignored about talking things out, and tests. I don’t know about you, but I can afford to wait a little while to get to the hot and sweaty.
I don’t see men or women just saying “I have HPV!” right before intercourse.
Again, you need to hang out with more open/honest people.
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.
Right, because judgement of a group based on the something that would be so wrong… say, backing away from feminsts.
Nothing extreme in making a snap judgement about a woman talking about her specific past, nope.
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.
What Draft? Seriously. What draft. Right now their is mandatory registration, but no draft. When there was talk about reinstating it (for the “WAR ON TERROR”) women’s groups were opposed to reinstating it without it being gender neutral. The conservatives were against drafting 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.
But you dismiss the actions of feminists to remove it, and then blame feminists for not fixing it.
Which is more of that borderline misogyny. You blame for things they are working against.
I didn’t say feminists were horrible…
No, not in so many words (as with your insulting of those who choose to get married, by telling them they were wasting their time, and only women benefit from it, and that the gravy train is why “girls” are for it. Nothing insulting in that), but you posted a link to a comic about straw-feminsts and then said it was typical of all your interactions with feminists (which, perforce, must include those here, no?).
That’s insulting.
And the comic you linked to, so approvingly, chock-full of “uncivil words”, and you said was accurate. So again, you have dressed your insulsts with a veneer of deniability. “You” didn’t say it, but nonetheless it was said, and you agreed with it.
@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.
Bullshit. If you didn’t care you’d not be spending so much time in responding to so many people.
alimony for life (even though it is rare nowadays).
Alimony at all is rare, but it was one of the planks in your anti-marriage platform.
Hey Brandon, remember how I said upthread that your big problem with marriage was that it involved factors beyond your control? Yeah, that.
I’m sorry to be the first to inform you that you’re part of a social species and that we depend on each other for our survival – you as much as anyone else, my special little libertarian cupcake – but being part of the human community, unfortunately, does mean that you have responsibilities towards others. Not necessarily to support them financially – able-bodied adults are responsible for earning their own livings; that’s just part of the human condition – but to take into account the needs, feelings, and opinions of others when your choices affect them.
Like, say, if you and your GF were to have a baby, perhaps having a discussion with her about how she feels about working inside vs. outside of the home instead of making a blanket declaration that you’d never allow her to quit her job because you don’t want to financially support her. Because, you know, that’s a big decision that affects her a lot more profoundly than it affects you, and your paranoia about alimony is a lot less important than the needs of your hypothetical child. I mean, you’re all up in arms about marriage because you think it places others in too much control over your life and finances, but you see no problem in exercising that control over others. Do you not see how selfish that is?
Asking you to consider how your actions affect others is not placing some tremendous unheard-of burden on you. On the contrary, interdependence is the basic survival strategy of Homo sapiens sapiens. Don’t like it, go be a sea turtle or something.
That being said, I can sympathize with not wanting to be human.
So can Frank Black:
@Rutee: I am all about reciprocating. If people help me out, I do my best to help them. While we all have to rely on others for somethings, some people are more dependent on others. I am saying one shouldn’t be completely dependent on another human being.
There is a difference between wanting to be responsible for someone or wanting to help them and being forced to help them when you do not want to.
“Who said anything about women, specifically, besides you? I take it upon myself to help all my friends, male and female, when I can, which isn’t always.”
Ya, I help out when I can…but it would be different if someone else was forcing me to help someone.
Last time I checked, women make up the majority of college students. They can pick what ever major they like. they get “women-only” loans and grants, etc,,, So please don’t give me this crap that women are unable to learn, go to school and provide for themselves. In fact, women make up the majority of teachers, nurses, therapists, social workers, dental assistants and if you want the gray area, legal prostitution (Nevada, Germany) and porn stars.
I also find it funny that feminists aren’t clamoring to end the hiring gaps in those jobs. So male dominated jobs = discrimination. Female dominated jobs = ok.
While not rich by any stretch, these are all middle to upper middle class jobs that provide enough income to care for yourself. If you can’t take care of yourself on 60K a year, you are overspending or not budgeting your money correctly.
Men don’t do half the housework because we spend more hours working at our full time job.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/oct/wk1/art03.htm
@Kristinmh And why should I be responsible for another human being? They should be responsible for themselves.
I thought you just spent a lot of time ranting that women ought to be actively responsible for men, what with that, “as soon as women make this thing I dislike, but most men aren’t willing to get off their ass to fix a big priority, I’ll give a shit about the things that affect them.”
And you are back to the whole alimony thing again with, “I don’t like to have obligations placed on me by a third party to take care of someone financially? “
I actually find that idea insulting to women…as if they can’t possibly take care of themselves.
We agree… only that you are the one saying that. Women aren’t. Feminists aren’t arguing for sex-independant spousal support. We are arguing that when on partner is put into a place of dependence, the other partner shouldn’t be allowed to just abandon them.
That society makes this a situation more common for women than for men is something feminists are actively working against.
@Rutee: Ya…getting forced by your government to pick up a rifle and start shooting people is “fairly minor”. It is easy to say that since you will never be forced to do something like that.
Again with the idiocy. Recall those amicus briefs?
And really dude.. are you less than 26? Because if you aren’t, you aren’t gonna be drafted. Newsflash: there isn’t a draft. Barring a repeat of WW2, their won’t be a draft. We didn’t even really toy with the idea of one for Iraq; never mind the ways in which the standards for enlistement were dropped (and the poverty draft is more damaging to society than an actual draft would be).
Then you ignore that the most recent legislation to be attempted, in relation to the draft widened the scope to all men and women.
SEC. 10. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended–
(1) by striking `male’ both places it appears;
(2) by inserting `or herself’ after `himself’; and
(3) by striking `he’ and inserting `the person’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men’ and inserting `persons’.
So that dog don’t hunt.
What, BTW, Make you think you, if drafted are likely to be slotted as an 11, 13, or 19 series MOS? Those are jobs for career soldiers, and kids. The career types, because laying out a sector of fire, planning a route march, setting a perimeter, overseeing PMCS of weapons and vehicles, co-ordinating fires, setting/triggering an ambush, etc. takes years of practice to do with any hope of real success, and kids because it take the sense of immortality that comes of being 19, and not having been shot at, to be willing to do it.
I’ve got about eight feet of Field Manuals on how to do that shit. You’d be more likely to be in the supply chain, or a clerk in the rear. Supporting the guys at the sharp end, but at any real risk of killing and dying.
Telling men that either you don’t want them in the feminist movement or that you can only join and be valuable if you behave in a manner you deem appropriate, and then expecting men to support you is highly illogical.
So why do you think it’s any better when you tell feminists that they can only get your support when they do it the way you want it done?
If you don’t want men in the movement (or the handful of men that will jump through your hoops) that is fine. At least it would be understandable if you were saying “We don’t want most or any men, we can do it ourselves so we don’t need your help or support”
That’s not what been said. What’s been said is, “we don’t want men telling us what issues feminists should be putting first.”, which is what you are doing.
If that’s too big an idea for you to get your head around, I can see why marriage is giving you troubles.
Is your grasp of international politics as weak as your grasp on economics?
It’s not going to happen until WMDs are no longer part of the global power equation and trade is no longer global. Americans no longer hate a group enough to die killing them, as we did with communists. We don’t have the option of drafting in our imperialistic wars any more, they’re not that broadly supported. In fact, the only way we can get Americans to agree to them now is by making sure they place absolutely no burden on the American people beyond buying yellow ribbon bumper stickers. You do know that the reason the debt increased so much in Shrub’s wars is because he knew nobody would support a tax to get this shit done, right? If he couldn’t get re-elected for taxing these wars, he’s not going to be for a draft. Ending the war and hte draft would automatically have won any opposition campaign by the democrats.
Nobody is going to launch a conventional war of conquest against a nuclear power. They’re certainly not going to do it to the biggest economy on the planet, not in the age of globalization, where that *will* tank their economy. The draft *IS* a minor thing; it has exited your life as an actual issue that will affect you on a more-than-philosophical level. To claim otherwise is either ignorance or dishonesty.
I gave one specific stricture. Vote for things that will end discrimination against women. That’s it. That is, in a very real sense, the least you can do. If you find that somehow onerous, I don’t care about you. I don’t want you. You’re deadwood in ANY movement. I didn’t even tell you that you had to change your behavior in any other respect.
Only if you’re one of those morons who thinks that not only is misandristic institutional bias a serious threat (Which is about as reality-based as anti-white institutional bias being a serious threat), but that feminists want to enact it. But the fact of the matter is that you’re only going to lose the unfair advantages you got. That’s a far cry from what MRAs expect women to give up.
I don’t want any men who refuse to vote in favor of equality for women, no.
Technically, I could fight to include women in the draft and fight for equality, as it is in Israel on this count.
I fight to end the draft because I’m a pacifist. I’m not doing it all though. I already told you I’d help on an activist level; make phone calls along with everyone else, march, etc. You want me to do it all, to count as fighting for it. That’s asshattery of the highest order.
Look, jackass, you don’t get to pretend that the tiny sliver of institutional bias against you is equal to the mountain that faces women. You’re acting like women benefit as much as men do, and that’s either stupid or dishonest. If women did, then ending benefits for both genders would be equivalent causes to fight for of equal magnitude, and deserve equal prioritization. But that’s not the real world, so.
Must be nice to be illiterate, what with not catching things like “Hell, I’ll help you on an activist level, but I ain’t doing the organization”. Makes it easy to pretend your opponents said whatever you wanted them to say.