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.
oh, was = what. My bad.
Not gonna answer my questions, NWO? Figures.
Brandon, meet NWO. He’s your Ghost of Christmas Future.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight, someone does not know much about economics. You might want to stop reading Mr. Mies.
@Anti-Lyn (otherwise known as Lyn)
“(though, I’d venture that I think that the measures which protect women and children from being made destitute are more important than you do).”
Women and children? How about men and children? In the old days they were given a name as well. What was it? Hmmm, oh yea, fathers. Rumor has it, they once had rights. Well just thank the goddess women and children are able to live comfortably!
@hellkell
I asked you a question as well, no answer?
Is it really, Beth? I’ll believe you if you say so, but it’s unlike any other contract I’ve ever signed. In any event, how can divorce constitute breaking the contract, if there’s a legal procedure in place for just that contingency?
were on to kooky goldbuggery now
brandon i could win like seven games of internet libertarian bingo using nothing but your comments
Sure, your comment about child abuse being under reported was as someone else said, the first reality based thing you’ve said ever here. I’ll even agree with you.
Your turn.
“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.”
You’re a vile little person, to look at it this way with your lover. A truly vile little human being. Randroids have defective emotions; I’d be happy if my girlfriend were safer. Fuck the costs, money is less important than her.
“This is why if you own your own house you have insurance for it. Hell, banks even force you to get it while you are still repaying the bank. Investments are trickier depending on what people invest in. Someone investing in gold right now is probably doing very well. You don’t want to place everything you have into one or two things…it’s called diversification and we do this to help prevent massive losses in our investments. ”
Actually, banks force you to get loan insurance, as an aggregate. Actual homeowners insurance is not nearly so forced. If you invest in gold, you’re not actually doing super awesome unless you specifically invested in one of those companies that fleeces stupid people with gold. You’re not doing bad, but you’re not doing super well either.
Frankly, owning your own home is a stupid bet for most people. Especially since you, Self Sufficiency Guy, are not only trading “Will my landlord raise my rent?” worries (Which you will reduce substantially with a long term contract) for market concerns, but you’re now suddenly entirely responsible for all maintenance. Which I just know a crazy person like you dedicated to self sufficiency has to be completely capable of if the alternative is paying for it… right?
That you think diversification is proof against major loss tells me you’re a complete amateur; mind, so am I, but I know that it’s not that easy. Yes, you should diversify unless you just love to take massive risks, but you’re not actually safe just because you’re not crammed into one place. Just safer.
“@Pecunium: If I get married I have a 15% chance of paying alimony. If I don’t I have a 0% chance…again not seeing the benefit. I am not worried about palimony since my state has never had a case that someone was granted palimony…so I don’t see that as a problem.”
She can only get alimony if she actually sacrificed her career to raise the kids. If you absolutely insist on you both having a career, it’s really not an issue, and there’s no problem
“2 and 3) Even if it was 10 contracts, I STILL think it is better than getting married, Sometimes the extra work is worth it in the long run.”
It’s substantially more, in most states. And why? Because alimony? You’ve already taken care of that by only marrying a woman who sticks to her career (Which I think is completely fair, personally.)
And don’t forget the major reason you are taking all this trouble only kicks in if you end the relationship, which generates even MORE work as you begin cancelling joint accounts, etc. If you only marry someone who has a career, you’re probably going to lose more on lawyers setting the contracts up then you were in alimony. And no, I’m not counting divorce proceedings; I’m pretty sure those would actually be cheaper than sorting out your property messes, because divorce is well established and easy enough to legally work through.
“In the long run, I would like to see all the benefits that everyone has claimed marriage provides, decoupled from marriage completely and those benefits and rights belong to all citizens not just married couples. Anything less is discrimination IMHO.”
Look, I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those rights and benefits come part and parcel with the difficulty to change the beneficiaries and rights holders. You’re not going to get this shit at 0 risk (Yes, the lawyers are risks; all else being awesome they can still mess up).
I care about men NWO, I was responding to someone who appears to be an MRA and MRAs tend to think that having measures in place to stop women and children being destitute is communism or some crap. They tend to be totally for all of the measures protecting men from being made destitute. Therefore, it makes sense that I would think that protections for women and children are more important than an MRA. This does not therefore immediately mean that I don’t think men should be able to access good food, clean water and housing. I do think all human beings should have access to the things which they require for survival.
Context. It matters.
@Elizabeth: It really depends on the lifestyle a man has that really determines if marriage is compatible with him. For me, I value my independence and I see marriage as a way to “break” men into family life. Marriage basically domesticates men like you domesticate a house pet.
For some men, they don’t see it that way and truly want to find a wife and have kids and do all that stuff. More power to them. Everyone should actively seek out what they want in life and if he wants to be married and enjoys family life then I wish him all the best. I see marriage as a cage and a loss of freedom. What can I say…I like the idea of saying, “l want to go X this weekend” and not have to plan it or make sure it matches up with her plans…I want to just go.
The only thing that is correct is that men do tend to live longer married than single. But as Bill Maher puts it…”and an indoor cat”
“I am not sure of the gold standard as it was back during Nixon, but I would like to see money get pegged to something so that one private bank can’t just cut all our money’s value in half because they can just print more money.”
You think tying currency to a commodity fights inflation?
Go study the history of Spain, early 16th century. I’ll wait. Protip: It is not without reason that the entire planet left a commodity-based currency after centuries upon centuries of established tradition.
“@Elizabeth: What am I hating on that prevented people from fixing their homes? Marriage has been around far longer than the idea of insurance. Or are you talking about The Fed? The main problem with The Fed is that by increasing the money supply with TARP, QE1 and QE2, The Fed has lowered the overall value of everyone’s dollar. This causes inflation which is nothing but a hidden tax that harms people who save their money and the poor. What Bush, Obama, Bernanke, Geithner and the rest of both administrations did was a damn travesty against the poor and the lower middle class.”
Actually, inflation helps a number of the poor right now, because the poor have debts. Debtors benefit when the value of their debt drops. That doesn’t mean inflation is a net good, but it isn’t automatically TEH EBILZ for everyone either.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
“Riiiiiiiiiiiight, someone does not know much about economics. You might want to stop reading Mr. Mies.”
For someone who claims to know anything at all about the economy, yet doesn’t even know how the federal reserve came into being isn’t the best person to be lecturing others on economy.
On December 23, 1913, strangely enough, the gavel was never struck adjourning congress and everyone went home save 4 senators. Those 4 senators signed the Federal Reserve into existance. The very system that has caused inflation and every economic collapse. Look it up genius.
Being able to do what you want on weekends is not something that suddenly goes ‘poof!’ when you marry. Some people like to have relationships where they know what the other person is doing, if you are saving money (and the environment) by only owning one car per couple then you may need to accommodate the other person in your plans. If you have kids, you may need to negotiate each others needs too. It isn’t marriage that takes away your free time, it’s the other obligations that go with having a family, and people all negotiate it differently. The main problem is the fiction that there’s a one size fits all kind of relationship out there that everyone should endeavor to be in…
It exists!
http://punkassblog.com/2007/07/05/libertarian-troll-bingo/
I’m waiting, NWO.
So, if marriage is a contract, then what are the legal obligations it entails? I’m not talking the “’til death do us part” sentimental rubbish, but the real, enshrined in statute or case law legal obligations. Any legal eagles want to help me out?
@Anti-Lyn (otherwise known as Lyn)
“I care about men NWO, I was responding to someone who appears to be an MRA and MRAs tend to think that having measures in place to stop women and children being destitute is communism or some crap. They tend to be totally for all of the measures protecting men from being made destitute. Therefore, it makes sense that I would think that protections for women and children are more important than an MRA. This does not therefore immediately mean that I don’t think men should be able to access good food, clean water and housing. I do think all human beings should have access to the things which they require for survival.”
I have yet to see women, feminists, the MSM, charities, The State, or any private organisation save MRA organisations ever, ever, ever say, “lets all save the men and children.” Or “lets ensure the welfare of men and children.” Or “men and children are dying in a foreign land.” Or “men and children are starving anywhere in the world.” I doubt I ever will.
Quorum, NWO. That’s your new Word Of The Day.
“@Elizabeth: It really depends on the lifestyle a man has that really determines if marriage is compatible with him. For me, I value my independence and I see marriage as a way to “break” men into family life. Marriage basically domesticates men like you domesticate a house pet. ”
So how’s that work with lesbians? Am I domesticating her? Is she domesticating me? What if the only family we want is the family we already have, and each other?
“For some men, they don’t see it that way and truly want to find a wife and have kids and do all that stuff. More power to them. Everyone should actively seek out what they want in life and if he wants to be married and enjoys family life then I wish him all the best.”
No, that doesn’t sync up at all. You can’t say marriage is a way to domesticate men, and it exists to break them into family life, and THEN say it’s just a normal thing someone wants. You took an actual stance on what it is *meant to do*, and what it actually does; those aren’t subjective. To say that marriage would hamper your freedom somewhat is likely true, and to say you value that freedom more than anything else is fair; but you can’t claim marriage is just there as a tool to control men in some fashion, then back out and say “But hey that’s cool, lots of guys want to love a family and…”
“What can I say…I like the idea of saying, “l want to go X this weekend” and not have to plan it or make sure it matches up with her plans…I want to just go.”
Dude, it isn’t a marriage you’re trying to avoid then. It’s any sort of serious relationship. There is no way to maintain serious and close contact with someone and then expect to not ever have to communicate your intentions, see if they match, etc.
I’m waiting hellkell.
See you don’t answer I don’t either.
Horrifying isn’t it. How dare a man question the wisdom of feminism or any woman at all for that matter. I guess I don’t see them as human.
@Rutee: If you look when the Dollar was not controlled by the Fed, there was very little inflation and a dollar in 1860 was still worth a dollar in 1870 mainly because it was pegged to gold. The two largest increases to inflation are: The actual creation of the Fed and taking us off the gold standard.
Gold has been used for over a millennium as a store of value (which is all the US dollar really is). It has served humanity well so I don’t think it seems appropriate to bash it when it has got us this far.
Inflation may initially help people with their debts but then costs rise (more money in the system) and then wages need to rise to equal it out. Then if wages don’t rise, then everyone’s standard of living goes down. Claiming inflation is helpful is what has caused America to be the debtors we are today. We don’t value saving our money because it is worth the most the minute we earn it. 5 years down the road, inflation could have taken a 10% chunk out of your savings. Hence it is more logical to spend the money as you earn it, thus creating a system were we live paycheck to paycheck and finance our lives on credit cards.
I have yet to see women, feminists, the MSM, charities, The State, or any private organisation save MRA organisations ever, ever, ever say, “lets all save the men and children.” Or “lets ensure the welfare of men and children.” Or “men and children are dying in a foreign land.” Or “men and children are starving anywhere in the world.” I doubt I ever will.
You mean say those specific phrases? o_O
No shit. If his argument is “I don’t want to marry my girlfriend because I might have to help her with medical expenses at some point in the future” she needs to run, not walk, the hell out of that “relationship” right now. I have helped total strangers with their medical expenses; I can’t fathom not wanting to do so with a loved one. It’s such an empathy fail that I’m having a hard time imagining what qualities his has that could possibly redeem him.
Pavlovian dog, captainbathrobe. That’s your descriptive Phrase Of The Day.