Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism evil women gloating misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy reddit

Dudes’ Republic of China

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.

697 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bee
Bee
10 years ago

Just for the record …

You know what works as a contract. “I hereby give my father all say in the matters of my medical and financial needs if I become legally unable to make those decisions for myself” (you + witness signatures + date) (notarized). While not standard, it is official and thus a legal contract.

Not really, though. No consideration; it’s unenforceable.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

*smacks forehead* Ooooh I forgot!

Well, at least he is not like me who half the time only wants to get married because it is the easiest way to change my last name.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

Wanna bet he would show up in court with a witness statement that is notarized and claim it passes the hearsay exceptions?

Captain Bathrobe
Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

Yeah, I married my sister…and her husband, after I got ordained on-line by the Universal Life Church. 🙂 It was fun!

My issue with marriage being a contract was that NWO was saying that filing for a divorce would constitute breach of that contract, which would result in SEVERE PENALTIES under any other circumstance–which is pure bullshit, and once again reveals that NWO doesn’t know his ass from a proverbial hole in the ground. Color my unsurprised.

I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that contracts are superseded by law. In other words, a contract which requires one party to act in a manner that is illegal is not a valid contract. For instance, I know that in CA non-compete contracts are unenforceable. You can sign an agreement with your employer to not steal his/her clients after you leave, but there’s no way that agreement can be enforced.

So, I guess my point is that it seems to me that the marriage “contract,” as currently understood in most states, does not constitute and agreement never to terminate the marriage. It seems more akin to a business partnership–a relationship that can be entered into legally and that also can be dissolved legally, but which also carries certain rights and responsibilities while in effect, and these rights and responsibilities are governed by applicable law.

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

“You know what works as a contract. “I hereby give my father all say in the matters of my medical and financial needs if I become legally unable to make those decisions for myself” (you + witness signatures + date) (notarized). While not standard, it is official and thus a legal contract.”

Uhm, Brandon? I do know what works as a contract. You, on the other hand, clearly don’t. The most fundamental requirement of any contract is consideration, and it’s completely absent in the example you gave. Rather, the example you gave is a proxy, revocable at any time. You are not bound by it; and actually, neither is your father.

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

… and it’s not an exchange of any kind; just one person willingly giving up something, and no one agreeing to take it. In short, no. Not a contract.

It’s weird, because generally I kind of want Brandon to get this one right. I don’t want to get married, and I have no interest in whether other people get married either. But where he falls down is (1) dismissing the difficulty (and even impossibility) of recreating all the effects of marriage through individual contracts, and (2) apparently basing his lack of interest in marriage in a lack of empathy, warmth, and love for those he enters into relationships with. It’s a little frustrating.

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

Bee: I think the most important thing to understand about marriage — and what MRA’s consistently fail to understand — is that marriage ISN’T, in fact, a business relationship, and therefore, not a contract. Actually, it’s not just MRA’s who do this, it’s generally quite fashionable nowadays to tout how marriage is just this terse exchange of money and goods. In reality, it never is. Most people marry for love, or at least a close, long-term companionship. And that’s emotional and sexual companionship I’m talking about. That companionship isn’t just an add-on to an otherwise standard commercial contract; it is the very backbone of the relationship. People who ignore that are just idiots trying to appear tough.

Captain Bathrobe
Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

So, what are the legal obligations of marriage, if any?

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

Yeah … I was actually going to touch on that in my comment, but, well, didn’t. One can certainly think of marriage as a contract. It’s like a contract in some respects. But it does differ from a contract in others. It has to.

“People who ignore that are just idiots trying to appear tough.”

Or … idiots who are difficult to love, and are sadly clinging to the hope that bragging about their (un-noteworthy) salary and possessions will win them some kind of interest from women? Eh, same same, I guess.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

“1) So what if it is from Kitco? Are you claiming that all the data at a investment website like Yahoo Finance is fraudulent because they earn a profit? Profit doesn’t automatically mean they are lying or committing fraud.”
It’s unsourced, you ignoramus. I have less than zero reason to believe their portrayals of past data are accurate if they can’t produce an actual source for it. They are not historians. That’s a problem. Profit doesn’t necessarily mean someone is lying, that’s true, but if they’re not actually forthcoming about their data (Which I *KNOW* they didn’t collect for themselves, and is clearly not proprietary if they are willing to advertise with it at any rate), there’s even less reason to trust them than normal, because in particular, they want *your* money.

“2) Gold just like everything else works on supply and demand. If people want it, the price goes up. If more people want it then the mines can produce…then it goes up more.”
Do you not understand how much society needs computers now? We don’t get a choice on going back anymore. It would increase the value of currency at the cost of making basics of life (and competitive economies) prohibitively expensive.

Further, because market forces control the price of your currency, you’re not actually working with something that has an actually fixed value. An increase in the supply can destroy your currency; again, THIS HAS HAPPENED IN HISTORY. More than once. It destroyed more than one empire, and if it happened in a modern economy, would ruin people even further than it did then. In fact, in a market as large as the US, it would do more than just ruin that one country; it could even more drastically destroy the world. You’d see the US exert even more military power to push around gold producing countries too, I suspect.

“3) Gold does have other uses but they are very specialized (e.g CPU pins and gold plated A/V cables, etc…) The only industry that really uses most of the gold are jewelers. ”
Specialized and damn near necessary. And in global demand. I’m not concerned about jewelers, because they don’t use that much. Enormous bars backing up all currency however, tends to use up quite a bit of the gold supply.

“4) ANYTHING can be used as a currency. As long as people perceive it to have value. The paper that the dollar is printed on isn’t even worth a dime…yet I can still go into a 7-11 and get a candy bar for a buck…Why? Because everyone (Americans and non-Americans) perceive that little piece of paper as worth $1 and not the .05 cents the paper actually costs.”
Yeah, I’m aware of how currency works. You’re insisting that gold is ‘special’ in having a fixed value, which is bullshit anyway, but what would you actually suggest as a commodity that isn’t important, exists in sufficient supply to actually support a global economy, is extremely difficult to reproduce in bulk, but can grow in supply with the population, exactly?

“The US dollar just makes bartering and trade more portable since people don’t have to lug around heavy bars of gold and silver or even farm livestock to trade with people.”
No, the US Dollar is also something that is, within our society, also guaranteed to have worth. That’s important. Barter economies work with supply and demand on a localized scale. Sure, that guy might have a pig to trade you so you can fix their roof… but when you’ve got enough food and meat in particular, that’s a terrible trade. IF he doesn’t have, let’s say, iron or shingling material or whatnot…

It’s not just a matter of portability; it’s substantially easier to use than actual barter, because actual barter isn’t conducted in animal-currency. It’s conducted by trading services and goods, and everyone would need to be part economist and part soothsayer to really replicate the most basic functions of our current economy.

“4) When I start seeing jobs getting created consistently month after month and wages increased…then I will put more faith in the US government. Otherwise, I will still remain skeptical.”
Feel free.

“5) What does corrupt and oppressive central and south american societies have to do with gold prices?”
Translation: The only thing you know about central and south america is that it’s the origin of ‘banana republic’ and that Hugo Chavez is vaguely important and powerful.

You said globalization lead to an increase in the demand for gold. You didn’t actually offer a mechanism and evidentiary to explain this, so I had to assume you meant globalization = more money = more luxuries = GOLD!!!$$$$$. Globalization hasn’t, by a long shot, lead to more money for the developing world in a meaningful sense. There’s been what, one or two winners, like maybe, MAYBE Brazil? But then, you didn’t offer an explanatory mechanism or evidentiary support for this assertion, so hey.

“Rutee…have you ever been homeless sleeping in shelters with drug addicts and alcoholics? Not having enough money to eat and going a week without something in your stomach? Well, I have…so please don’t lecture me about the poor, because I was poor for most of my twenties.”
Yet you rant on about how people live paycheck to paycheck because it’s more economical and cheaper for them because of their debts? You claimed that this form of poverty was a matter of deliberate choice for economic gain; that is so stupid that you are either a complete idiot, or you are dishonest. I don’t care which it is.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

CB, one of my links has a break down of the legal obligations.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

“@Rutee: If you are going to continue to be insulting…I won’t bother. ”
Riiiiight, that’s such a huge problem to you, what with the insulting rather large swaths of people for getting married at all.

Amused
Amused
10 years ago

CB: The only legal obligation I can think of is one of mutual financial support. Moral obligations are a different matter. Marriage also entails a bundle of legal rights, but those are generally in the nature of legal presumptions and automatic operation of laws, rather than the kind of legal rights that are the flip-side of obligations.

Captain Bathrobe
Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

Thanks, Beth and Amused. I’ll look at them when I’m not at work. 🙂

Molly Ren
10 years ago

“Oh, and the wedding costs could be put to better use…like a down payment on a house.”

I feel like what Brandon is protesting is an *ideal* of marriage: the idea that a marriage is a ginormous, white-icing-covered production that only tangentally involves the husband, is wildly expensive, and once over no one ever has any fun again. Instead, they sit in front of the TV every night, get fat, and maybe have a screaming baby.

Brandon, this is a powerful cultural stereotype, but it doesn’t have to be that way. You might want to look at Offbeat Bride, read about Holly’s super-sexy Vegas wedding fetish, or just, ya know, Google for what lots of gays have said about the reasons they want to be married. Some people get married in a court house in a thrift store dress, with no guests in attendance–some people just can’t *afford* to have a ceremony that equals a down payment on a house.

You’ve said that my defense of marriage makes me a bad feminist. I, personally, can’t imagine myself getting married: I’m bisexual and poly, so unless the laws change soon, I probably wouldn’t be able to. (I too support the idea of making it so that marriage rights can be applied to anyone more easily, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon either.) Second, I’m still working my way through how LTRs actually work, so I don’t yet see myself as “ready” for that kind of commitment. But I do think that, legally, marriage is a good choice for a lot of people, and that people can live out their lives in all kinds of non-traditional ways once they’ve tied the knot.

VoiP
VoiP
10 years ago

The idea of “store of value” and “currency” are nothing more than abstract ideas…paper money and gold are the practical implementations of that abstraction.

If you are aware that both of these systems are arbitrarily-defined social conventions, why pick the one that would give the Democratic Republic of the Congo more control over our monetary policy than our own government? Why gold? Why not a tungsten-standard or a cattle-standard or a giant stone disc standard?

VoiP
VoiP
10 years ago

Riiiiight, that’s such a huge problem to you, what with the insulting rather large swaths of people for getting married at all.

Not all people, just women! Who are apparently motivated by fluffy bunnies and clouds inside their pretty heads, while cold, rational men have the existential courage necessary to stare down the void of Being by going out on the weekends and, should their partner incur medical expenses, leaving them holding the bag..

VoiP
VoiP
10 years ago

Goddamn it, the two-dot ellipses again.

Dracula
Dracula
10 years ago

I suppose we could always go the Anhk-Morpork route.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golems_%28Discworld%29#The_Golem_standard

The tricky part is finding the golems.

Sharculese
10 years ago

Everyone has already pointed out most of whats wrongs with brandons idea of contracts but i think its also worth pointing out that contracts arent magic. they exist because theres a legal framework to make them exist, without which a contract would just be two people agreeing to do something for each other without any way of making sure the other party upholds his end of bargain

NWOslave
NWOslave
10 years ago

@Captain Bathrobe
“My issue with marriage being a contract was that NWO was saying that filing for a divorce would constitute breach of that contract, which would result in SEVERE PENALTIES under any other circumstance–which is pure bullshit, and once again reveals that NWO doesn’t know his ass from a proverbial hole in the ground. Color my unsurprised.”

It seems your grasp of a binding legal contract is very limited. Look at a marriage license, at the top is the corporate name of the owner, ( The State of …). Under that is the corporate name(s) of the indentured party(s). The way you know if it is a legal contract is if your name is in all capital letters. Look at any State document, credit card you own. Your name will always be in capital letters. Any letters you recieve in the mail which aren’t a legal contract, only the first letter of your name will be capitalized. The State holds the title to your marriage that is why the State decides who gets what, which is of course is why the State is able to transfer wealth and children, (rights) from men to women. That’d be the violence of the State women are able to wield.
———————————————
@Rutee Katreya
“Further, because market forces control the price of your currency, you’re not actually working with something that has an actually fixed value. An increase in the supply can destroy your currency”

Your knowlege of finances and market forces are infantile at best. First off you need to dispel any notion you live in a capitalist society. Take the price of gas for instance, how can it fluctuate so radically? Has supply dropped and grown so radically? Of course not the price is “set” and has nothing to do with supply or demand. There is no competition, therefore there is no capitalism. The same is for virtually all minerals, foods, etc. When lumber or pork bellies or oil goes up. Did the trees grow poorly? Did the pigs go on strike? Have the oil wells run dry? You live in a communist society.

Your knowlege of currency is equally lacking. Your money is a note, not a bond. This ain’t the good old days. Heres the way the system works. For every “bond” the Federal Reserve lends to the State a “note,” (a debt) is passed onto the general population. For every “bond” the Federal Reserve lends to the State the Federal Reserve is able to “lend” (flood the market) with nine “notes” to the private banks, who in turn lend 9 “notes” for every “note the Federal Reserve lends them. The Federal Reserve and private banks are supposed to have a 10% reserve of wealth, which they don’t.

So when all you lefties “hailed” Obama for keeping our communist government afloat by borrowing 2 trillion dollars, heres what you’ve done. That 2 trillion was passed onto every person as a debt to the Federal Reserve, who in turn will lend 18 trillion dollars to other bankers. and they in turn will do the same and lend it to you as bank and credit card debt. The will keep the interest rate very low in order to flood the market with cheap currency. Eventually, as they’ve done time and time again they will raise the interest rates, stop the flow of money, call in their markers and buy everything back for pennies on the dollar. Which is exactly what happened on 2008. Guess who owns it all now, the bankers, the same people that lent the money, caused inflation and then caused the, haha, recession.

Right now, under the present system, all money is debt. If every person/business paid off their debt and borrowed nothing there would be no money left. Not one red cent since all money is borrowed by the State there is only debt. Until the Federal Reserve is once again destroyed in this country we will always be indebted to the bankers. And yes, I said once again because it’s happened before in this country. Think bank of Philidelphia.

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

NWO, are you one of those people who doesn’t pay taxes because “this tax bill is addressed to NWOSLAVE, who is a fictional person as my name is clearly NWOslave?”

The State holds the title to your marriage that is why the State decides who gets what, which is of course is why the State is able to transfer wealth and children, (rights) from men to women.
This is so far from true, or even meaningful (“owning” a marriage???) that I’d like to hear your views on Reptilian Aliens next.

Sharculese
10 years ago

owlslave ‘capitalism is incompatible with price fluctuation’ is probably the funniest thing youve said since superdogs

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

…also, as the State (well, elected officials and bureaucrats, anyway) has a significant majority of men in the upper levels, what exactly do they have to gain by giving women all the money?

NWOslave
NWOslave
10 years ago

@Holly Pervocracy

If the State isn’t the owner of the contract how can they decide any course of action ot “grant” a divorce? How can the State decide any course of action about children or property? The only way they could do this was if they were the owners of that contract.

1 11 12 13 14 15 28
%d bloggers like this: