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.
One of my colleagues had a problem with me saying that we should allow marriage equality because it was more efficient. His reaction was actually pretty funny because he is a guy who believes that everything should be efficient. *laughs*
And Brandon, I would highly recommend Marriage, A History From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage by Stephani Coontz. It is a fascinating look at the institution that is pretty much universal among humans and how little it has to do with love in the course of human history. Marriage resembles a business contract because that basically what it was and has been for thousands of years. Essentially love was a bonus but not required.
I believe the most accurate stat for rape of women is 1 in 6, actually. 1 in 4 female college students are raped.
Not to mention that lesbian relationships have some problems (most notably, “stay with me or I’ll tell your homophobic boss/mother/friend you’re gay”) heterosexual couples by definition don’t…
I was talking about this cluster of studies.
Estimates of abuse have ranged between 47% and 73% (Coleman, 1990; Bologna, Waterman, Dawson, 1987; Lie. et al. 1991) among lesbian subjects who responded to questionnaires assessing prevalence of some form of physical, sexual, or emotional-psychological abuse in at least one relationship. Estimates of verbal abuse in lesbian relationships have been as high as 95% (Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). About half of lesbian subjects who participated in research surveys indicated they had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents during their relationships, and about three-quarters had experienced 6 or more (Renzetti 1992).
Yeah one in four is a common theme, when rape of men by women is included as a definition of rape, men report one in four too.
So Catalogue is agreeing rape is appallingly prevalent.
Good to know.
Yep. 1 in 6 for women, 1 in whythefuckwillnoonehaveastudywithoutmajormethodologicalproblems for men. Appalling, really.
Ozy, do you not understand why these studies use a modified cts in order to created the illusion that abuse is mainly gendered?
edit – create
Catalogue: Care to cite this unreasonable modification?
Pecunium –
Here is a quick guide to some of the techniques used
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
and here is Straus on what he calls the feminist version of the cts http://breakingthescience.org/StrausSaysTjadenThoennesBiased.php
Show me one feminist source that is supportive of changing divorce laws in ways that won’t benefit women.
The switch to no-fault divorce in the U.S. was a net loss for women in financial terms. Before, women tended get more in the divorce settlement because the husband was more likely to be the one at “fault” (for cheating, abuse, or absenteeism). In terms of greater freedom, however, no-fault divorce is a net win for both men and women.
From what I can see, feminism is actively and vehemently opposed to shared parenting. (NOW and similar groups in Australia).
No it isn’t.
Shaenon
Michigan NOW Declares ‘Action Alert’ Against Shared Parenting Bill
Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an “Action Alert” against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children’s Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill.
The contact information for the members of the House Families and Children Services Committee who will be deciding on HB 5267 next week are below–I suggest you call and write them. While letters from Michigan residents are best, letters from other states are also helpful.
http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm
Australian battle against feminist groups for shared parenting
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-28/shared-parenting-hurting-children/1407562
Catalogue: Your last link concerns a shared parenting law in Australia that fathers’ groups pushed for and now women’s groups are asking to be changed. The article reads in part:
The push for a change in the law seems to be something that would benefit children, primarily. Congratulations! You’ve just met your own challenge.
[quote]Ozy, do you not understand why these studies use a modified cts in order to created the illusion that abuse is mainly gendered?[/quote]
That’s unusual, you know enough to make claims that require Paywall access to substantiate or disconfirm. Problem is, Straus is referring to one study there, and you’re claiming it was all of them; further, you’re ignoring that Strauss SPECIFICALLY points out that after they did the massive fuckup of only asking women, pressure was applied to add men to the sample, and the data still indicates that violence against women is the bigger problem. So… dishonest in the extreme, this article is.
“Here is a quick guide to some of the techniques used
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf”
As to the rest, yes, you have a respected dude who I’m reasonably certain is in fact reality-motivated making grave claims. I lack paywall access to examine the methodology in depth at this time, so I’ll keep that in mind in future discussions of domestic violence. But bear in mind I can’t accept this as fact either, as it’s one guy, and I can’t actually examine his claims of bad methodology right now. Unless you can, and I somewhat doubt that… yeah, you shouldn’t be nearly so sure as you are.
Bee
Thats just one article on an ongoing attempt to roll back shared parenting headed up by feminist groups.
And its a fallacious argument – Shared parenting might be hard on children of high conflict couples (I’d wager this relates to mothers obstructing access) therefore we must roll back shared parenting. Its nonsense.
I take it Bee that you don’t want attention drawn to the fact that feminist is against shared parenting.
More here from Sue Price in Australia
“For months now, men’s and fathers groups in Australia have tried to stop the advance of this bill which is, they claim, based on false allegations and the unsubstantiated belief that the Family Court is handing over children to violent fathers. The onslaught has been unstoppable, fuelled by academics, securing research funding to produce studies designed to support their agenda and an attorney general who sees nothing wrong in demonising fathers by introducing legislation based solely on the presumption that only women and children deserve protection from violence. All of which ignores the facts – that significant numbers of men are victims of spousal/partner violence, more mothers abuse and kill their children and mother’s itinerant boyfriend’s present an ever present risk as the children get in the way of their mother’s new relationship.”
http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/tag/sue-price/
“I take it Bee that you don’t want attention drawn to the fact that feminist is against shared parenting.”
Where did you get that idea? I stated as much in my comment.
Do you have any arguments against a feminist anti-mandatory-shared-parenting stance other than “Its [sic] nonsense”?
In your perfect world, what would you tell the judge who’s forced to order shared parenting even when there’s ample evidence that shared parenting is having an adverse impact on the child? What would you tell the child?
“(I’d wager this relates to mothers obstructing access)”
Really now, you little piece of MRA shit? Because I can’t say I’m surprised that kids don’t like high conflict divorces and shared parenting; that means you’re in the middle of someone else’s dramafield (LIke mines, but instead of losing limbs, you suffer drama). I’ve been there; it’s not fun.
”
And its a fallacious argument – Shared parenting might be hard on children of high conflict couples (I’d wager this relates to mothers obstructing access) therefore we must roll back shared parenting. Its nonsense. ”
Depends; if shared parenting is mandated in all cases without domestic violence, yes, you need to heavily modify those laws.
“All of which ignores the facts – that significant numbers of men are victims of spousal/partner violence,”
Indeed true; abusive mothers don’t need to get kids, same as abusive fathers.
“more mothers abuse and kill their children”
Yep. Of course, mothers also spend significantly more time in contact with kids, so it’s to be expected.
“and mother’s itinerant boyfriend’s present an ever present risk as the children get in the way of their mother’s new relationship”
WTF? Do fathers just never get girlfriends?
I take it from your stance you are against shared parenting and discussion of feminism obstructing it.
“In your perfect world, what would you tell the judge who’s forced to order shared parenting even when there’s ample evidence that shared parenting is having an adverse impact on the child? What would you tell the child?”
This is an appeal to emotion. If shared parenting is having an adverse effect on a child, it should be dealt with. But rolling back shared parenting on the basis of that child or more accurately using that child as a pretext to roll back shared parenting and damaging many more children in the process is not a solution.
I find it interesting that the subject of shared parenting is brought up in the context of a thread about the house going to the one who paid for it in the event of a divorce. So you have your typical, traditional Chinese family. The husband works and buys the house. The wife stays home and raises the kids. Then the husband gets himself a mistress, and wants out of the marriage. So what happens in the divorce? Well, we know the husband keeps the house because he paid for it. But the children should be … shared? Why? Seems to me the MRA’s want to have their cake and eat it too. If people should get only what they invested in in the divorce, then the husband who paid for the house should get the house, and the wife who raised the kids should get the kids. Deal?
“This is an appeal to emotion. If shared parenting is having an adverse effect on a child, it should be dealt with. But rolling back shared parenting on the basis of that child or more accurately using that child as a pretext to roll back shared parenting and damaging many more children in the process is not a solution.”
How is caring about the well being of the kids during shared parenting not a solution? Aren’t the children the very core of shared parenting in the first place If so, if rolling back shared parenting benefits them while shared parenting presents harm in some cases, isn’t it rational to do what’s best for the children?
@Rutee: I really don’t think it is idiotic to make the claim that if you are self-sufficient you have more power to make choices that you want (as opposed to someone making them for you). If I own a house, I don’t have to listen to an asshole landlord telling me what to do or that they are going to raise my rent…because I am my own landlord. The same is true with self-employment, a properly funded retirement account, etc… If you have more resources, you don’t have to beg and plead with others to get what you want or need.
@kristinmh: I am old enough. I am also a die hard realist. I realize the current legal situations surrounding marriage. My point being is 95+% of that “suite of legal rights” can be obtained without marriage. Then you just have to weight the other 5% and see if it is more important to you than the liabilities and sacrifices of marriage. In my mind, that 5% isn’t worth it.
@Rachel: 1) Parents can place their children on their healthcare policies regardless of marriage (at least in my state). 2) As long as marriage is legal, then everyone has the right regardless of sex, race, creed, etc… to get married. If straight couples can get married then gay’s should have that right too. 3) Immigration is probably the only sticking point with marriage. If I wanted to marry a foreigner, I would only have the option of marrying her in order for her to come into the country. This really is one of the very few benefits of marriage that doesn’t have a counterpart outside of marriage. 4) Humanity has been reproducing long before marriage and they will do it long after it. While I don’t have the answers to this question I would say people are crafty and adaptive…needless to say, no marriage doesn’t mean the species is going to die off.
@Kendra: Because as a man, if she decides to stay at home then if the marriage fails I am legally forced to continue to support her. If she took time off to have a child, then re-entered the workforce, it wouldn’t be as big of an issue. The divorce rate is pretty damn high, so I think it is naive to not think “what if this relationship ends”. If other people want to do this, that is fine. I am not going to tell others they should live the way I do. I might express my opinion, but I am not going to think badly if someone doesn’t take my advice. Marriage is also the most limiting relationship around. What about swingers, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc… .
People can make whatever choices they want with their partners, as long as both parties are agreeing to it. Marriage doesn’t prevent people from doing anything. Marriage is nothing more than the government seeing you, your partner and children (if any) as a business. And to make love, emotions and intimacy into a business is asinine and absurd. Business is business and love is love…the two should not mingle. Just like church and state.
Also, a marriage contract doesn’t prevent people from helping them financially when the times are difficult (e.g loss of job). There are countless relationships where people are helping to support others through difficult times.
@Pecunium: I never said it was easy. Also, I think you are seeing more work than it really is. When I was hired, I had to fill out the health benefits paperwork and my 401K paperwork. Both of these you can assign beneficiaries in case you die. It was as simple as writing in my parents names and signing and dating at the bottom. Voila! Legal contract.
No redlocker
It not logical to roll back shared parenting because so piece of advocacy research shows that some children fond it difficult.
Its logical and in the best interests of the child to leave shared parenting in place and deal with the children that are objecting on a case by case basis.
The argument being put forward by these women’s advocacy groups is just a pretext to roll back shared parenting. its not really about the best interests of the child at all.
“I take it from your stance you are against shared parenting and discussion of feminism obstructing it.”
I’m against mandatory shared parenting. I think taking away options that might be better in individual cases is always bad. And again, if you think I’m “against … discussion of feminism obstructing it,” I really have to wonder where you’re getting that idea. (Although I’d rephrase that as: discussion of feminism fighting against mandatory shared parenting rulings. But wev. I’ll just fix it for you, cuz I’m sweet like that.)
“This is an appeal to emotion. If shared parenting is having an adverse effect on a child, it should be dealt with. But rolling back shared parenting on the basis of that child or more accurately using that child as a pretext to roll back shared parenting and damaging many more children in the process is not a solution.”
Well, no. You seem to be arguing for a one-size-fits-all solution from the get-go, and saying, Well, if the child is harmed, we’ll deal with it later. I’m saying, Why not let the judge be a fucking judge who orders shared parenting when appropriate, and primary custody with visitation when that’s appropriate? Why would you want to force a one-size-fits-all solution on something as varied as human interaction and family dynamics … unless your case was fucking shit?
” I really don’t think it is idiotic to make the claim that if you are self-sufficient you have more power to make choices that you want (as opposed to someone making them for you). “
That only makes sense if you are living in a society that permits you to be self-sufficient without abiding by its norms, such as getting married. In countries like China, the social pressure to marry, on women especially, is fucking insane. And I realize your next response is probably “Well, ignore social pressure”, but that advice works only in places like the United States or Australia or Canada, where there is a niche and a social support network to be found for virtually everyone, along with strong anti-discrimination laws. But in traditional and homogeneous societies, like the Chinese one, the pressure to marry is institutionalized. For a woman to be unmarried in China is bad; to be unmarried and living with someone out of wedlock is unthinkable. First of all, dollars to doughnuts, a woman like that would be unemployable anyway. Her children would be ostracized and abused at school, possibly denied entry to college as well (I don’t know about China, but the Soviet system of university admission required all freshmen to come from conventional families of demonstrated “good moral character”). Local public officials will easily deny this family civil rights in the absence of laws that protect such people from discrimination.
It is the worst possible situation where society and its institutions goad women into marriage, require them to take time off for childcare and thereby suffer tremendous career setbacks and discriminate against women in the workplace — and then kick them to the curb if their marriages breaks down.
I am all in favor of former spouses walking away each with what he or she earned — provided the spouse who earned less wasn’t forced to take a pay cut by stringent social expectations. I am all in favor of shared parenting — provided men engage in shared parenting before the divorce, including shared diaper-changing, shared cooking, shared laundry and shared shit-cleaning, not just the more pleasant and glamorous aspects of parenting. But as long as the nature of marriage disadvantages one of the spouses by requiring her to do the bulk of the housework and the child care to the detriment of her self-sufficiency, courts should take that into account when they split up the assets.
What you don’t seem to understand, Brandon, is that it’s not “as a man.” If one person stays at home and the other works, and then they divorce, the second person has to pay the first person some money, because the courts make the reasonable assumption that (a) the first person helped the second in zir career by networking, doing all the housework, caring for the kids, etc. and (b) the first person’s career is harmed by several years out of the workforce. However, typically the person who says home is, in fact, female. Why might that be? (Spoiler alert: sexism.)
Catalogue: So you support shared parenting even when it isn’t in the best interests of the child? That’s… nice.
For the record, I support defaulting to giving physical custody of the child to the primary caregiver and legal custody to both parents, and I am in general a supporter of fathers’ rights issues although I differ with, say, Fathers & Families on strategies (I believe the first step to is encouraging more men to be the primary caregiver).