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.
@Pecunium: Ok…I don’t really put that much thought into divulging my past sexual history with others. For one, women start acting different when I talk about those things. Some of the times, one of the girls will ask about STD’s. I sometimes just say “Im clean” in a off the cuff manner. Basically…I really don’t pay to much attention to it. If she asks, I don’t lie. That is pretty much my take on the STD comments.
Where the hell did I say I like blood-play? That is just nasty…and talk about high risk behavior.
My dealings with women who label themselves as feminists haven’t gone very well…so based on precedence I just ignore them as potential friends/lovers. I don’t want to waste my time or hers since we most likely will not get along. I have a different world view than they do and while I agree with some of feminism I also dislike and have opposing viewpoints with other parts. This causes a lot of strain and I am not in a relationship to be stressed out or constantly fighting about discrimination or the patriarchy. Also the fact that a lot of feminists immediately see me as someone who oppresses women…that just isn’t a turn on for me.
In regards to ManBoobz, I see the one redeeming value of it is David rarely deletes comments or blocks people even if everyone disagrees with them. To me that means he actually respects the first amendment (even if he is doing it just to get more ideas for posts).
Sites like Feministing and Feministe will shut you down the moment you deviate from feminist dogma. To me that is intellectually dishonest and it shields the readers there from debate and challenging ideas.
That cartoon was completely exaggerated…but it has been similar to many arguments I have had with feminists. It starts off as nice and respectful and the more I am get called a bigot and a misogynist, the more blunt I get with my words. I typically don’t use name calling since sinking that low means you have already lost the debate. We debate ideas not people.
I do think that women get more benefits from marriage then not. It always seems to be women that are clamoring to get married (yes not ALL women want to get married). I have a few guy friends that want to get married but the majority of them think “Fuck that! I am not going to rely on one woman to fulfill my sexual needs, especially when women today are far more sexually active”
Thanks feminism 😉
While I am stating my opinions, It doesn’t really matter if you agree with me. If you do great…if not oh well.
Alimony is rare…that is why I said it. But if you get married you are opening yourself up to paying alimony. If you stay single you wont ever have to pay it. And my state doesn’t have any palimony crap laws either.
@Kristin: If I have a baby, I am responsible to take care of that child…not her. The baby can not possibly defend or look after itself…she can. She is a grown adult. Assuming she can’t take care of herself is infantilizing her.
Again, there is three options: 1) we can both agree to work 2) We can both agree she will stay home and 3) I think she should work and she wants to stay at home
Here are the answers:
1) Great
2) Not happening
3) Houston we have a problem
Solutions:
1) We both get what we want
2 and 3) In order for us to both get what we want, I would have to end the relationship so she can find someone that will want her to stay at home.
The only thing I see myself being morally and ethically obligated to is paying child support.
Brandon: @Pecunium: Ok…I don’t really put that much thought into divulging my past sexual history with others. For one, women start acting different when I talk about those things. Some of the times, one of the girls will ask about STD’s. I sometimes just say “Im clean” in a off the cuff manner. Basically…I really don’t pay to much attention to it. If she asks, I don’t lie. That is pretty much my take on the STD comments.
I don’t say I’m clean. I say, “My last test was x long ago. I’ve added Y new partners since then, they had tests as of z” If they aren’t comfortable with that, I’m not interested. I am willing to take some risks (condoms work, or they don’t), but I have other partners to consider.
Where the hell did I say I like blood-play? That is just nasty…and talk about high risk behavior.
Where did I say you did?
Really. Because this is the sort of thing which causes (I think) a lot of your problem. Not just that you fail to see what other people didn’t say, but in not seeing what you do say.
I am not in a relationship to be stressed out or constantly fighting about discrimination or the patriarchy. Also the fact that a lot of feminists immediately see me as someone who oppresses women…that just isn’t a turn on for me.
This, I think is the real problem. I’ve been in lots of relationships with feminists (both sexual, and not). Even where we disagree on things, relating to feminism, “feminism” isn’t what our relationship is about. Take Ginmar. We disagree on a number of things related to feminism; and how to argue for it. Doesn’t change the underlying basis of our relationship, and lots of our conversations are about things which have nothing to do with feminism.
Alimony is rare…that is why I said it
Not quite. What you said, was, “If you get married don’t forget you open yourself up to paying alimony, and 97 percent of alimony is paid to women, so it’s no wonder women like marriage”.
As to palimony being crap… We disagree. No surprise. I think that, should a partner be disadvantaged as a result of the way the partnership was built, the other partner ought not be able to just walk away.
It is, you may note, a gender neutral position. That men are socially disadvantaged, in other ways, if they should enter into the position of dependent partner is why the alimony stat is as skewed as it is, and part of why the patriarchy hurts men too.
None of that touches any of the ways in which you mis-undertsand what marriage confers, nor the ways in which you fail to see that your style of argument is polite, but insulting, and something short of being actually civil.
That may be the real reason your interactions with feminists end the way they do.
@Pecunium: You are talking to a former 19 Delta. It takes 16 Weeks of OSUT training. 11B takes 13 weeks. Combat arms jobs are where draftee’s will go since the front line is where they would be needed most. They certainly aren’t drafting you to learn a foreign language.
Infantry and Calvary don’t require high scores on the ASVAB. (I can see the “your dumb” comments coming…I joined calvary because I was 19 at the time and I wanted to blow shit up) Throwing grenades and looking like a badass looked so much better than my crappy Stop and Shop job at the time. Plus Calvary has the best Army uniforms.
Being in the service also gave me a little insight into the whole draft issue. Draftee’s would make shitty soldiers. They don’t want to be their and they would most likely resort to passive-aggressive behaviors which are counter-productive.
Also Calvary is younger than most other MOS’s but most of the NCO’s their were in there late 20’s early 30’s.
@Rutee: I am interchanging the draft and Selective Service…basically one is nothing but “attendance” or a “role call” before the big day.
Brandon is giving me flashbacks to this guy, at least in terms of the last paragraph.
Also to that time when I expressed surprise MRAL identified as a liberal/libertarian, and Rutee was like “Ha!” IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.
So your big response to my listing the barriers before actually having a draft is a saber rattling act which has gone nowhere and will continue to go nowhere, in terms of actual effects? If you can not get the political capital to tax for a war, you absolutely can not draft. You’re ignoring this basic point, and it’s just making you look more and more stupid.
I also note you’ve magicked your way out of responding to everything I said about activism, prioritization, etc.
That is actually happening in one district here in AZ. There is quite literally a movement afoot by the the die hard Democrats to get one die hard Republican to replace a different die hard Republican.
These are yellow dog Dems. They are the ones who actually become precinct committeemen and who either resigned or put it off to help a Republican out. So you know, even though the Republicans have been horrible to this state, they are still helping this one Republican out.
So it is possible.
Your problem with feminists is that they point out you are wrong (which is rarely pleasant of course but one should always be sufficiently open minded enough to accept that possibility which you are not), they show you how you are wrong and when you refuse to pay attention to what they say or show you, they refuse to back down like you assume all women should when you refuse to listen to a woman or women.
@Pecunium: You are talking to a former 19 Delta. It takes 16 Weeks of OSUT training. 11B takes 13 weeks. Combat arms jobs are where draftee’s will go since the front line is where they would be needed most. They certainly aren’t drafting you to learn a foreign language.
Then you aren’t really in much a spot to be whining about the risks of being drafted to go kill people, are you?
I joined calvary because I was 19 at the time and I wanted to blow shit up)… Also Calvary is younger than most other MOS’s but most of the NCO’s their were in there late 20′s early 30′s.
That would the the whole point of the combat MOSs being a mix for career soldiers, and kids.
Infantry and Calvary don’t require high scores on the ASVAB. (I can see the “your dumb” comments coming
Look again. I did a career. I spent a lot of it with combat arms troops. I got to play with Marines, SF, Seals, 11Bs. I was lucky enough to do it with people from more armies than I can recall.
Combat arms jobs are where draftee’s will go since the front line is where they would be needed most. They certainly aren’t drafting you to learn a foreign language.
No, actually. The needs of the service are what drive the draft (you might like to take a look at the actual history of the draft). An entire army needs to be fielded, and volunteer enlistment isn’t all that high in a conscript army.
Having been in a linguist MOS (which happens to have a lot people reclassing into it) and being from a family which has some history in the service (my father was a Marine, and my grandfather was in ww1), and being rather fond of history, and military history… draftees got every job the Army had. In Vietnam the made up most of the linguists. Same in WW2. When 90 percent of the people in the ranks are inducted, 90 percent of the jobs go to inductees.
And older soldiers, don’t make the best grunts, so older draftees (e.g. WW2, when the average age of inductee was 26, and the average age of a dogface was still only 19) end up in support roles.
Also, as Rutee points out, you didn’t address any of the rest of my comments; esp. as regards your tone.
@Molly: At least that guy knows what he wants…even if it is pretty shallow.
@Rutee: I didn’t respond to your comment because you are basically making the claim that “I know what is going to happen in the future” For fuck sakes, we had nukes and other WMD’s in the 60’s and we still drafted people into Vietnam. We also don’t trade with every country. So it does seem that globalization and trading actually prevents wars. But there are still lots of countries we can easily justify going to war with. North Korea.
I can’t possibly refute those claims because, you are speculating what future politicians will vote for.
Also, attending a protest and filing some simple paperwork as support is nothing but lip service. Feminist blogs are practically silent on Selective Service. Most of the posts on the popular feminist sites talk about the following: abortion, vintage sexist posters, marketing, pop culture, republicans, wage gap. Oh I especially liked the article on Jezebel that asked how many of its readers hit their boyfriends…ya real tolerant bunch. I just love the hypocrisy…don’t abuse women…”HEY GIRLS DO YOU BEAT YOUR BOYFRIENDS?”
@Elizabeth: Really? You are really going to wedge in that flimsy excuse to negate what I said? The point wasn’t republicans or democrats…but that as a man, working with feminists is working against my best interests. It’s like being rich and voting for a politician that wants to raise my taxes and only my taxes.
For fuck sakes, we had nukes and other WMD’s in the 60′s and we still drafted people into Vietnam
Yes, and we’d had that draft, non-stop, since 1942. Which is very different from starting one up, when there isn’t an existential crisis.
Even when there were intimations made of a just such a threat from Iraq (drones with biological weapons being flown by Iraq, into the US, or Condoleeza Rice telling us we couldn’t wait until there was Mushroom Cloud over New York). We didn’t seriously consider raising a draft. When the idea was mentioned, it was said to be a ridiculous political stunt on the part of the Democrats to undermine the war.
So why, when the 2ID’s battle staff thinks they, (with the ROK Army) can hold a line 50 miles S of Seoul until the needed troops from the US arrive, have arrived, and can start the counter-offensive at roughly D+18, there is the need for a draft?
And why do you keep dismissing that the most recent legislation to enact a draft included women? It’s almost as if you have an agenda what won’t be swayed with facts. You say, in one sentence that the future can’t be predicted; so you can’t be asked to make any, while in the next predicting that future.
So, explain to me the justification we have for war with N. Korea?
@Penculium: Because if they did start up a draft…who are they taking first….the men that have already signed up. It’s the path of least resistance. The govt could either quickly get a list of women to get drafted…or use the list they already have.
We don’t have a justification for attacking North Korea from my point of view. But when we trade with other countries it acts as a deterrent for war. Have you noticed since WW2 most of the wars are against countries where we do little to no trading with. Why wouldn’t we attack England if they did something we opposed? Because they import a lot of good shit to the US. Having trading partners prevents wars because each party gains because of the money and products exchanged.
See what I mean about not listening? (And no, I expect you to ignore the point I am trying to make like you do everything else.)
I pointed out where you are wrong-instead of saying “hmm, odd, can you show me what causes this odd thing?” you simply dismiss it since it does not fit in your world view.
Then you return to the fact that if you work with feminists on anything, you are working against your best interest (despite the ample evidence to the contrary I might add) and then do another simile that can also be easily refuted:
French Billionaires Call For Higher Taxes
Billionaires voice support for higher taxes on the wealthy
Tax Me, I’m Rich, Says Deep-Pocketed Group
Brandon: You’re ignoring all the actual content related to your claims about feminism (and your misrepresentation of your reasons for not liking the present draft registration), to focus on what… poorly understood theories of international relations.
While ducking the very issue you proposed (i.e. the US going to war with N. Korea… I’ll quote you, so there’s less chance of you saying I didn’t understand you; the way you did when caught out on your backtracking on “letting” someone do something you don’t like. But there are still lots of countries we can easily justify going to war with. North Korea.).
I’m not asking for a justification you believe in… just some justification (in light of the facts I presented about the 2ID’s expectations on the probably COAs,and outcomes of N. Korea invading S. Korea) for 1: the US going to war with N. Korea, and 2: reinstituting a draft.
As to the “path of least resistance” They have to actually pass a law to initiate a draft. I’d say the thing you ought to care more about is one that feminists have been fighting for, women in combat arms. Because even if there was a 50/50 call-up, women and men, women are prohibited from being in combat arms.
Now, about Britain. Care to guess when the US scrapped War Plan Red, detailing the planned COA for a war against Great Britain?
1939. It was drawn up in the 20s. Britain was one of our largest trading partners.
Why? Because conflicts over trade are one of the most common causes of war.
In the 1890s, the US came closer than most realise to declaring war with Great Britain (and perhaps, again, invading Canada) over the British role in the dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain over Guiana. War Plan Red actually assumed a joint task force of Brits, and ANZACs would take our Pacific assets,and perhaps invade the West Coast (probably Portland by sea, and moving up to join a south moving force of Canadians from British Columbia).
So, you think the US could justify a war with N. Korea, and would need to institute a draft to prosecute it.
Let’s see the reasoning.
*puts on barker costume* Get yer bacon popcorn here folks! Get yer bacon popcorn!
I swear, every time I read something you post Pecunium my reading list gets longer.
@Elizabeth Ok…we are mixing shit up. There isn’t a direct link between feminism and voting for a politician to raise taxes. I was using it as an example…not to debate if rich people should pay or not pay more in taxes. But if I was in a tax bracket that a politician wanted to raise taxes on, I wouldn’t vote for them…if Warren Buffett wants to, that is his choice.
Besides women being more promiscuous and tend to have sex far more frequently then in the past, what has feminism done to help men?
Are you going to actually listen if I tell or show you or are you going to do what you have been doing which is: ignore or dismiss anything that does not comply with your already arrived at conclusion?
Because frankly, you really do not seem to be worth the effort. If you make an honest attempt to learn something, it will be worth my effort.
What if said politician wanted to raise taxes and end the draft? Mind blown??
Yer precious. ‘Member that job your girlfriend has, the fact that she is literate and able to vote, the fact that you don’t have to marry her to live with her (or to protect her from completely legal rape), the fact that y’all have access to birth control, etc? Or girlfriend aside, how do you feel about the fact that 50% of the population is now able to contribute to the world in capacities other than childcare? A huge chunk of things you benefit from on a daily basis — medicine and healthcare, service jobs, transportation and engineering — all have been hugely advanced by increased female participation.
But yeah, feminism hasn’t benefited you in any way aside from those.
@Bagelsan: Ok…an increase in the workforce. Check!
and not having to support the girlfriend you claim to have…
You fucking miserable piece of human garbage. You just bumped yourself up to the third worst poster on this forum, and I’m not sure whether you’re actually better than NWO, because you are consciously aware that women are the actual victims in society, and I don’t have reason to believe you’re suffering some sort of disorder. You are no longer stupid; you are beyond dishonest. You are a shitpile.
You just admitted that men benefit more from sexism. That men are the primary beneficiaries of society, that men get more advantages, and that for all your anti-reality whinging on the draft (Which I will get to), you know that you get the lion’s share of the benefits. Your selfish little ass just outright stated you will never work with feminists to scale back the benefits men receive, because it isn’t to your benefit to do so. This directly after complaining about how women and feminists are not ‘for equality’ because we do not prioritize the few ways you actually suffer. You know, *KNOW*, that women suffer more, and you STILL expect them to focus their efforts on you, despite outright stating you will never help them because it isn’t good for you. You are scum. Go back to whatever Men’s Rightsitarian Wankfest that spawned you. Your antics will earn you no quarter. And on a personal note, go fuck yourself.
Vietnam was little more than an imperialist venture, not a defense of the homeland. It exhausted the American public’s willingness to actually sacrifice for more of the same. Yes, there was a draft in Vietnam; there was also massive public backlash throughout the entire war, ultimately resulting in the pulling out of US forces. WMDs are relevant because nobody will attack the homeland until they are removed from the power equation, because to do so is suicide by nuke as it stands. You know this; you also know that this is the only way to get support for a draft now. You still pretend a draft is a real threat. It will not happen until and unless the american people actually become willing to sacrifice for their imperial ideals; this is not the case. Again: We could not even get people to pay taxes for a war. We can not draft them. A draft is a non issue, because it is utterly impossible without a massive change in the mindset of Americans.
Sure you could, if you had an actual point about a thing that was actually possible, and not a boogeyman you conjured to try to scare feminists into thinking they weren’t for equality. You could find evidence that indicates that a draft is a serious threat. For instance, you could find senate and house plans that had a serious movement to draft, with wide, if not majority, support. You could find polls that indicate support by the american people for a draft. Good luck with that, it’s not actually a possibility.
@Bostonian: Oh yea… I am just lying about Ashley.
Also, I support my girlfriend. My whole beef was that it was immoral to force someone to support another fully capable adult.
@Bagelsan: Ok…an increase in the workforce. Check!
Seriously, that’s all you got out of my comment. Be honest; do you throw a dart at every comment, and then read only the sentence that dart lands on?
Also, I’m pretty sure the only reason the US might attack North Korea is if we finally get fed up with them acting like a dick to Japan. And I’d venture to suggest that we would not have to exert the entire might of the United States, universal draft and nukes galore, against a country that almost managed to get a small missile partway across the Pacific that one time.
The first problem I see in attacking North Korea is will China join in? Because then would be an entire country effort that we could very well lose.
@Rutee: You are correct. I don’t want to scale back the benefits of men. I would rather push women to have those benefits and be treated just like men. Despite what you may think, I think I am far more of an equalist than you suspect. So lets break this down:
1) Women should sign up for Selective Service as long as men have to.
2) Women should be paid the same as men for the same job, same performance and same hours.
3) Women have their own say in what happens with their body.
4) Women should have the right to vote and participate in politics.
As it stands now, men and women just receive different benefits. While men are predominately at the top of the career ladder, they are also at the bottom. I rarely see women clamoring to equalize garbage collectors or sewer treatment workers. And these are govt jobs that have to abide by gender quotas more so than private companies.
Women pretty much rule the roost when it comes to children and the raising of them. Women get to decide if they have a baby even if the man doesn’t want to become a father. Mothers are awarded custody far more often then men. At the divorce, men are typically kicked out of the home and delegated to “weekend parent” and “child support check”. Women are typically not punished for denying the father access to the child when it is his weekend or time with the child. And child support payments have zero accountability. Oh and feminists are actively opposing shared parenting laws.
So when it comes to family matters, men pretty much have no power or say. What ever the woman says the woman usually gets.
@Bagelsan: I just summarized it.
I think that a “total war with China” scenario just brings us back to the the-entire-crust-of-the-Earth-is-fucked thing though. :p