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.
It’s interesting to see how compartmentalized a lot of the arguments are.
Men should get more custody of the children! (What in the best interest of the child? Which parent spends more time caring for the child?)
Using time spent with children is an unfair measure of parenting skills! (Why don’t men push for more time away from work to care for children? Why are women assumed the care givers?)
Men should get paternity leave! (What feminist is fighting against that?)
Women are allowed more time off from having to work for a living! (What do you mean by “allowed”? Why are women denied promotions more frequently than men “because they may have children”?)
Courts are biased against men! (When have women been able to write laws? Why are court positions still predominately filled by men?)
I see a lot of MRA’s screaming and lying and ignoring some really basic assumptions rather than admit there may be something wrong with the current system and it’s not that Teh Menz R oppressed!
“It not logical to roll back shared parenting because so piece of advocacy research shows that some children fond it difficult. ”
Advocacy research you can’t actually gainsay on its own merits. It sounds like feminists in Australia are opposing it being ordered in all cases, regardless of circumstances, which seems completely reasonable to me.
“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.”
You can’t do that if the law specifically mandates you always enact shared parenting.
“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 can declare these things too; watch. “The argument to keep shared parenting in place is only put forward by men’s rights movements as a pretext to hurt women, it’s not really about the best interests of the child at all”.
Even if what you said were true, it matters not, as long as children were indeed better served by not mandating shared parenting, which it seems is the case. But you have no evidence that this is true, you’re just attempting to discredit your enemies.
“@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. ”
If you own a house, you have to pay the bank, and have to worry about them devaluing your investment needlessly. Self employment doesn’t free you from the woes of working; it only substitutes the woes of an owner in place of the woes of the peon; guess what, those woes are about their dependency on the customer base. A ‘properly funded retirement account’ is a luxury for most to begin with, and guess what: You’re relying on an investment person of some sort to successfully and accurately place the money.
It’s only barely feasible to be self sufficient, and then, not entirely, because you rely on societal and governmental structures that provide some baselines. I certainly do understand wanting to make sure a relationship is as equal as possible, but pretending you’re actually self sufficient is laughable.
“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.”
So concerns for the safety of the child are just ploys to reduce shared parenting…just because? What evidence do you have that feminists are using children for their own advantage in this situation?
Bee
I think you misunderstand shared parenting, and no one is arguing for it to be mandatory – just something that can be applied for and awarded by the courts.
Brandon –
“1) Parents can place their children on their healthcare policies regardless of marriage (at least in my state).”
Who was talking about children? I am aware that you can put your children on your healthcare policy – the point is that without a legal marriage, you cannot claim your significant other as a dependent on your healthcare coverage.
“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. ”
At what point was I talking about gay marriage?
“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. ”
Glad you agree.
“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.”
Did you even read my comment, or are you responding to someone else? Considering I never said anything that even remotely translates into a concern that the species will “die off,” I am really concerned. The point is that the benefits or potential disadvantages that come along with a legal marriage are too complex to be boiled down into legal marriage is right or wrong in every situation. So, while I respect your decision to avoid it, you should also respect, rather than insult, the people who choose to enter into it (in my opinion. You are obviously free to think and say what you want), because you can have no idea why those people decided a legal marriage was the right option for their family situation.
“So concerns for the safety of the child are just ploys to reduce shared parenting…just because? What evidence do you have that feminists are using children for their own advantage in this situation?”
Yes that’s generally the method. Mothers are more likely to abuse the children (73% of parental child abuse in Aus is committed by mothers), so logically, if these women’s advocacy groups were all about the children they would be warning us about that. But they are not, quite the opposite in fact.
“Yes that’s generally the method. Mothers are more likely to abuse the children (73% of parental child abuse in Aus is committed by mothers), so logically, if these women’s advocacy groups were all about the children they would be warning us about that. But they are not, quite the opposite in fact.”
But where is the evidence? Where are the cases where a Woman’s Advocacy group or a feminist group covered up child abuse by mothers?
By the way, there are feminists that have written about child abuse by women, like Bell Hooks, for example. As far as I know, feminists are against child abuse in general, so what is the MRM doing about child abuse?
Okay, my bad. I’m not from Australia and don’t know anything about family law in Australia.
I should have said “presumed” or “default.” (Not “applied for.”)
The rest of my response remains the same.
Catalogue –
you said “Bee – I think you misunderstand shared parenting, and no one is arguing for it to be mandatory – just something that can be applied for and awarded by the courts.”
Your statement, by your own sources, is incorrect. You cited earlier to the Glen Sacks newsletter dealing with Michigan NOW’s objection to a shared parenting housebill (http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm). Well, if you actually take the time to read Glen Sacks own words you will see – “the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child.” Therefore, yes, this is something that would be mandatory unless the opposing parent can show by clear and convincing evidence (which isn’t as strong of a standard as beyond a reasonable doubt, but much stronger than the standard in other civil cases) that the parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child.
If what you want is just an option that can be awarded by the courts…well, in most states that option already exists. However, this law you are fighting for isn’t it.
Rachel, in Australia, shared parenting is something that has to be applied for through the courts but women’s advocacy groups want the option rolled back.
The presumption of joint custody as starting point unless there is a genuine problem,which women’s advocacy groups in the US are against, isn’t mandatory shared parenting or joint custody.
Catalogue, the “applied for” thing that you keep talking about … that isn’t quite true, though. Why are you trying to mislead? Are you trying to hide something?
From a fathers’ rights site:
“These new amendments introduce into court proceedings a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. In simple terms, this creates a starting point whereby both parents are considered to share equally the responsibilities and obligations of important decisions relating to the child/ren. … As a default, both parents are equally obligated and collectively responsible to participate and determine issues relating to the child’s long term welfare.”
Presumption. As a default. Not “applied for.”
Uh… but is it really in the best interest of the child to be shuttled between two families, possibly with parents who hate each other (since they couldn’t settle custody arrangements out of court), probably forgetting toys and homework, certainly spending a lot of time in transportation, having inconsistent rules between houses even though children thrive on consistency? Not to mention the headaches of coordinating doctors’ appointments, parent-teacher conferences, extracurricular activities…
Defaulting to “the primary caregiver has physical custody” seems sensible to me. Joint legal custody by default, however, I am 100% in support of.
Ok, shared parenting has changed since I applied for it in Aus. Its still not mandatory, its just a presumption and a starting point, which seems to me to be correct. So NOW and Aus fem groups are both opposing the same presumption and the women’s advocacy groups in both countries use fallacious arguments based on inaccurately stereotyping child abuse as something that fathers are more prone to commit order to advance their agenda, which is advocacy on behalf of women, regardless of the best interests of the child.
Given that mothers are more likely to abuse their children and the modern research shows that they are more likely to be violent towards their male partners, its counter intuitive of these feminist to be fighting against the presumption of joint custody, if it is really about the children, if anything fathers rights should be increased.
So back to the original point that was in dispute, I said that feminism was against shared parenting, and that seems to be true.
Catalogue –
You said, “The presumption of joint custody as a starting point unless there is a genuine problem, which women’s advocacy groups in the US are against, isn’t mandatory shared parenting or joing custody.”
I agree that a presumption of joint custody as a starting point is not mandatory shared parenting or joing custody. However, the law that you specifically cited to support your proposition that feminist organizations are trying to prevent men from having equal access to their children would, if enacted, require joint custody. Michigan HB 5267 says, “(1) In a custody dispute between parents, the court shall order joint custody unless either of the following applies:” and then gives two situations where the requirement of joint custody would not apply. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billintroduced/House/htm/2005-HIB-5267.htm
In the law, when the legislature write “shall,” that means this is what the court must do unless one of the exceptions is met.
So, unless you have other examples of feminist organizations fighting against a starting presumption of joint custody, rather than a requirement, your source doesn’t really support your proposition.
I am unfamiliar with Austrailian law, so I am not going to attempt to argue with you on that one.
“So NOW and Aus fem groups are both opposing the same presumption and the women’s advocacy groups in both countries use fallacious arguments based on inaccurately stereotyping child abuse as something that fathers are more prone to commit order to advance their agenda, which is advocacy on behalf of women, regardless of the best interests of the child.”
Evidence, please?
“Given that mothers are more likely to abuse their children…”
Aren’t mothers also more likely to be, you know, caring for their children and spending time with them? Putting aside the fact that these kinds of claims lump together abuse and neglect (which are two different things), I love it how MRA’s fail to correlate the percentage of time spent with the child with the likelihood of abuse. I suppose it’s very easy to never abuse a child that you don’t actually care for.
“the modern research shows that they are more likely to be violent towards their male partners …”
That research has been thoroughly debunked. Research that equates evasive action with aggression, and destruction of property with assault of the person is dishonest any way you cut it.
Catalogue:
Bee asked “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?”
and you replied: 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.
Which is wrong. She wasn’t making an appeal to emotion. She was asking why you favored a straight-jacketed approach.
Calif., for example, has a presumptively joint custody in divorce, but in a contested divorce, with children, the children get an independent advocate; court appointed, with no dog in the fight.
The overriding interest is that of the child.
But you choose to attempt an obfuscation, by accusing Bee of a fallacy; while not actually looking to the point: which would still exist as a valid one, even if the last sentence were an appeal to emotion, rather than a logical question of policy, i.e. what should one do about children in conflicted divorces.
You favor making it as difficult as possible to avoid a mandatory shared custody; by making it something which has to be done ex post facto. That, or your sentence saying, “it should be dealt with” actually means in the process of the divorce, in which case you aren’t actually in disagreement with Bee.
Brandon: @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.
As a partner if one of us is becoming the stay at home parent, with all the affect that has on one’s future career/income, it isn’t something that, “x chooses” to do. It’s a joint decision.
At that point as a decent human being some level of ongoing obligation ought to continue. As a matter of present legal landscape the odd of alimony are slim, but the lack of marriage won’t prevent an egregious case from having an award of support (independent of child support). See: Palimony n. a substitute for alimony in cases in which the couple were not married but lived together for a long period and then terminated their relationship. The key issue is whether there was an agreement that one partner would support the other in return for the second making a home and performing other domestic duties beyond sexual pleasures. Written palimony contracts are rare, but the courts have found “implied” contracts, when a woman has given up her career, has managed the household, or assisted in the man’s business for a lengthy period of time.
And I am not making it more work than it legally is.
Have you drawn up a will?
Have you created a POA for your bank account (and did you know that those, apart from marital POAs, are irrevocable? You have to close the account to void the POA/Joint use of an account)?
Have you attempted to get, not a beneficiary, but rather add a second covered person to your health contract?
Who get your 401K when you die?
Are there survivor’s benefits to your SSA account?
Who has Medical POA? Who has the legal authority to allow someone other than the landlord into your house (repairmen, police, fire inspector, Animal Control Officer)? Who is allowed to let them into your bedroom, or personal office (these are important issues in the event of a question about searches)?
Who is, or isn’t, legally covered on your auto-insurance?
Who has the right to sue on your behalf in case of incapacity?
Who becomes your guardian ad litem, in the event of such incapacity?
Who is allowed to petition for guardianship in the event of mental incapacity?
That’s just the stuff which comes off the top of my head. Things which, once created, live on forever (unless you put a sunset on them, and then you have to remember to update them as they expire).
It’s a non-trivial problem. It’s taken hundreds of years for them to accrete, it’s not going to be one piece of paper to manufacture them as a set of private contracts; esp. as those private contracts have public implications.
That looks like a good bill because what it tells a disputing couple is “sort out the dispute or you will be ordered to do this”. More a deterrent for those that would obstruct a reasonable arrangement than anything else.
“and you replied: 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.
Which is wrong. She wasn’t making an appeal to emotion. She was asking why you favored a straight-jacketed approach.”
I was actually arguing against the “straight-jacketed approach” argument put forward by the feminists groups in the australian article which Bee seemed to be making too … ie. – some shared parenting agreements are problematic therefore there shared parenting should be rolled back, which is clearly fallacious.
If that’s not what you were saying Bee I apologize.
Catalogue: I think you misunderstand shared parenting, and no one is arguing for it to be mandatory – just something that can be applied for and awarded by the courts.
That is the majority position here. It’s the actual postion of pretty much every feminist group I can think of.
Shared parenting is the default, but it’s not automatic. The interests of the child come first, and foremost.
EDIT – therefore shared parenting should be rolled back
My understanding is that MRAs and their allies in the US have been pushing for states to change the legal standards in custody to cases from “the best interests of the child” to “rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.” Feminist groups, particularly NOW, have raised objections to the presumption of shared parenting as a legal standard, for fear of how it would play out in practice. It does not necessarily follow that feminists are against shared parenting in principle, however. Most feminists I know (including myself, a feminist and a father) favor greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their children. The concern is primarily with the effect that this change in the law would have.
Pecunium, yes I understand that many average feminists would support shared parenting but average feminists have no political power, Its “governance feminism” or whatever we want to call it that does have political power, that is opposing it.
That’s where a lot of these conversations can get complicated
“Feminism is doing X!”
“No its not because I’m a feminist and I’m not doing X!”
“I was actually arguing against the “straight-jacketed approach” argument put forward by the feminists groups in the australian article which Bee seemed to be making too … ie. – some shared parenting agreements are problematic therefore shared parenting should be rolled back, which is clearly fallacious.
“If that’s not what you were saying Bee I apologize.”
Well, what I was saying was:
“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?”
In other words, in cases where shared parenting is the best option for the child, it should be granted. But the judge shouldn’t be forced into a situation where there are no options, or the bar for rebuttal of the presumed parental order is so high that there are no meaningful options. I think that it’s something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis — the exact opposite of a “straight-jacketed approach,” in fact.