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.
Someone investing in gold right now is probably doing very well.
Why am I not surprised?
Sounds like Brandon is very young (and therefore immortal), chose his parents well, and has no children to care for.
@Rachel: In the scenario that you presented, it is in her best interests to get married, not mine. Since she is the one that would be placed on my already existing policy.
While I see no benefits to marriage, that doesn’t mean that you won’t. The whole healthcare issue seems to be very important to you and getting married (if you are not already) allows you to either get insurance or lower your premiums. From my perspective, my costs go up…hardly a benefit. Hence, your benefit is my obligation and disadvantage.
human relationships are like investments *beep boop* this is what my research into earthling behavior has shown
I get the feeling Brandon’s a Glen Beck fan. Why? I dunno…
How would socialised medicine affect your thoughts on marriage, Brandon?
@Catalogue
Your attempts to wrest power from women/feminists is valiant, and having equal access to both parents equally is always in the best interest of children, but they simply don’t care about childrens welfare. All feminists and many women will use the violence of the State which is at their disposal. They like it. They get to pretend they abhor violence while commanding the State to use violence on their behalf.
They simply attach a name like “primary caretaker” to all women to make kidnapping and extorting money from men sound noble. They’ll prattle on with excuses about women staying home as the “primary caretaker” and losing out on a career. What they neglect to mention is the luxury women who stay home enjoy, and it is a luxury, make no mistake. They also don’t mention that the reason a woman is able to stay home as the “primary caretaker” is because the man is working as the “primary moneymaker.”
If they “cared” about the childrens welfare why not put the child in the hands of the person most financially solvent and allow the woman to persue a career and give her unlimited visitation rights? The answer of course is money/power. Most importantly the man wouldn’t be punished for being a man, he must pay financially even if the woman committed adultery.
Also someone threw a stat out about women committing 71% of child abuse. Well, as feminists are apt to do, they swear 90% of rapes go unreported due to shame/embarrasment, etc. Well the same can be said about child abuse if not more so. Who would be less likely to report being abused than a child? They’re children, they’re scared, they’ll love their parents no matter what. If any crime of abuse is under-reported it has to be child abuse.
FWIW, both my wife and I have jobs eligible for health insurance. We use my wife’s for our family’s needs, because hers is better. Of course, we have kids, which changes everything. It’s hard to be a Libertarian when you have kids and aren’t rich.
“If any crime of abuse is under-reported it has to be child abuse.”
You know what? I think NWO has actually said something reality-based, here.
Except when he combines it with this: “having equal access to both parents equally is always in the best interest of children”
Interesting you mention both the Fed and the Insurance industry Brandon…because it was insurance that led to the creation of the Fed.
In 1906 something huge happened to the insurance market. It led to the Panic of 1907 which led to the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
@Magpie: I am 29, my parents are not poor nor rich (blue collar Irish family from the projects) and I don’t have any kids nor do I plan on having any. I have enough little cousins to be the “cool uncle” guy.
@Katz: Why are you surprised? Gold prices are going higher the more the dollar collapses. I see little to be surprised about.
@Rachel: Are you NOT defending marriage? I have not heard one person on this comment thread say “Ya, Brandon I feel the exact same way about marriage as you do”. There have been a few women that support my stance, but they are rare and so far not on this thread.
Well the same can be said about child abuse if not more so. Who would be less likely to report being abused than a child?
owlslave is it a rule that every post you make has to include some variation, on, i bet if research existed it would support my assumptions
maybe one day you should go looking for these studies you know in your heart of hearts are out there
Here’s an open question:
Is it a reasonable statement to say “I respect you, but I think this thing you do/think is total crap?”
It’s clearly unreasonable to say “I respect you, but this thing you think/do is obviously total crap,” because that’s saying that can’t tell that something is obviously total crap, which is not respectful.
I have enough little cousins to be the “cool uncle” guy.
the fact that this is your rebuttal to be accused of having no children speaks volumes
Brandon, you are rich enough to talk about investments.
I like being an Aunty, but not a parent, too. 🙂
Saying Brandon has no children was in no way an ‘accusation’. There’s nothing wrong with not having kids.
Oh Brandon, isn’t it great being a healthy white man in your late 20’s with no dependents? If only everyone else in the world were wise enough to be the same.
yeah i probably could have picked a better word than accused there but i was blanking so i just went with what came to me. no negative connotations intended.
but a good response to ‘you dont have the responsibility of caring for children to take into account’ doesnt really include ‘sometimes i am charged with entertaining other peoples children, but not to a degree that they see me as any sort of authority figure’
Brandon – in my scenario, I never stated which partner had the health insurance issue. I simply stated that some policies are better than others and some full time positions do not offer health insurance benefits at all. It could be you with the better insurance, it could be your significant other. I’m not, nor have I been, talking about your situation or mine, I am talking about the overall legal benefits and obligations of marriage for couples in general.
Finally, the health insurance issue is not of particular import to me as I have a full time job with great benefits and no need to rely on my significant other in that aspect. The reason we are discussing health insurance at all is because it was brought up by numerous individuals on this post as one of the benefits of marriage, you assumed they were talking about a different type of insurance (property insurance, maybe), it was made clear to you that the actual discussion was regarding health insurance, you assumed people were talking about adding children as dependents, it was made clear to you we were talking about adding a spouse as a beneficiary, and you assumed that this ability is irrelevant. Anyway, my personal goal to ensure that people don’t misconstrue the things that I say…and multiple times on this thread you have responded directly to me…but about something I didn’t actually say…or you have responded to something that is similar to what I said, just not quite right.
It’s hard to be a Libertarian when you have kids and aren’t rich.
Sure you can! Just emanciate them as teenagers!
isn’t it great being a healthy white man in your late 20′s with no dependents
not gonna lie it is pretty awesome
Sharculese – I know you weren’t trying to be negative 🙂 I was thinking exactly what you said in your second para.
Brandon – I am defending the fact that for some people, marriage is the right choice and while marriage may not be something that you see as even mildly beneficial, that doesn’t make the institution as a whole wrong for everyone in every situation. Again, an automatic assumption that what is good and right for you is good and right for everyone is very egocentric.
@Sharculese
“owlslave is it a rule that every post you make has to include some variation, on, i bet if research existed it would support my assumptions”
Would that be like the hard statistics of 1 in 4 college women are raped? I mean Dave did post the link that clearly showed a very thorough study where the actual number was 1 in 1877 I believe it was. Just a slight feminist descreptancy.
Yes, you’re right, child abuse by women is over reported. Those crazy kids.
Brandon: Don’t insurance companies have the right to drop any customers they want? If you don’t like it, switch jobs!