Did China Just Take a Great Leap Backward on its Marriage Laws? (Hell no!)

zyk0s · 2011-11-03T14:50:43+00:00

This is a textbook example of the entitlement syndrome and "women are victim" lens through which most of today's media "critical analysis" is carried out. Here's a few:

Experts agree the change would mostly affect women, since men traditionally provide the family home.

Powerful logic: since this is about asset protection, the person mostly affected are the people who don't own the asset! For some reason, affected means negatively affected, and the positive aspects can be ignored.

Some husbands have agreed to this, but others have balked, and Chinese news outlets have already reported on marriage breakdowns caused by a husband’s refusal to add his wife’s name.

I like the use of the word "balk": it is assumed that men should be giving the fruit of their labor to their wives. No corresponding assumption is made the other way. At least the pigs got what they deserved since their marriage is "breaking down". Notice that it doesn't specify what that means. Were the wives leaving? Doubtful, since she wouldn't have a place to stay.

Marriage law experts and feminists are asking

Meteorologist, climate scientists and lobby groups representing the oil industry are also asking wether global warming is not a fabrication.

“Feudal society is back again. How many hundreds of years will it take before women are free again?”

Another great logical conclusion: I am a slave because I can't get half of a person's property.

The new rules hollow out the very basis of marriage

Picking and choosing what they like. Divorce on the other hand doesn't seem to hollow out the basis of marriage (as, you know, a permanent thing). Unless the basis of marriage is a transfer of assets from a man to a woman without anything in return.

“How can the home where you live together become just one person’s property?”

The logic doesn't stop amazing me. Should I become the owner of the apartment I am renting because I lived there long enough?

The new rules ignore a woman’s unpaid contributions to the home, including childbirth, child rearing, housework and caring for elderly family members

This one is wonderful. Using the two definitions of the word, brilliant! My boss refused to let me keep my office when I quit, he didn't acknowledge my contribution to the office during the time I worked there.

Because of deeply held traditional beliefs that men must be the homeowners and heads of the household, women rarely purchase homes. Their parents may even advise against it. With recent “massive” rises in property values, Ms. Fincher said, this was worsening inequality.

So women don't purchase homes, and homes are a good investment. Gender inequality!

The new rules could put women off marriage, she predicted.

Scare tactic. Funny, the prospect of losing your assets, your kids and lots of money in family court doesn't seem to put men off marriage, or at least, that's not important.

“Men have always provided the marriage home, so women’s rights have been hurt,”

This is probably the best one. The logic is that of entitlement, that women have a right to be provided for and a right to the assets of men. They seem to really like communism, it worked so well for them.

jmnzz · 2011-11-03T16:01:20+00:00

Does the law in China restrict women from going to work, getting a job, or owning property?

If the answer to those questions is no then detractors to this new law need to, as feminists would say it, check their privilege.

Imagine a society where what men buy with their own hard earned money can't be taken away from them by women.

A feminist's nightmare, and an egalitarian's dream.

logrusmage · 2011-11-03T16:07:06+00:00

“Men have always provided the marriage home, so women’s rights have been hurt,”

Oh god... the hilarity... it's side-splitting!

2011-11-03T14:23:26+00:00

Look at this! Just look at it. Women are so terrible at planning and negotiating that they need the state to do it for them and in their favor. How about this: If you want to own half a house and the land it's on, you plan to do that, negotiate that through and you pay for half of that house and the land it's on. Just like is done with every other damn shared property.

Marriage laws just took a step forwards in China and America needs to look to China. Get rid of entitlement upheld by the state! Women need to get off their asses and pay. Women, it's not enough to simply spread your legs and lure a man into marriage, that's feminist bullshit.

theozoph · 2011-11-04T12:55:44+00:00

The MRM needs to come to China, it would seem. If the feminists manage to repeal this law (quite probable, given the prevalence of far left dialectics), I predict a marriage strike in the next 10 years.

The Internet is making everything go faster, bitches! Expect us. :)

girlwriteswhat · 2011-11-03T18:26:31+00:00

An equitable solution:

A woman who stays home, cares for children, etc, should be "paid" what a live-in nanny would be paid. That is, she gets some financial credit for the work she's doing. Then you subtract her share of the utility bills, food, the full cost of any purchases that only benefit her (clothing, toiletries, make-up) on a monthly basis, subtract that from her "salary", and what's left over (if anything) goes into the abstract "what I paid into the family home" account.

I'm guessing it wouldn't cover remotely half of the mortgage payments.

Upon divorce, he keeps the house, and the woman gets her investment back--if she "contributed" $200/month toward the mortgage and they were married 4 years, she gets a one-time payout of $9600 (plus monthly child support--NO alimony). If she "contributed" a negative amount because she spent more than she earned on herself while married, she gets to pay that sum to him.

Seems entirely fair.

redditnotevenonce · 2011-11-03T15:36:22+00:00

Hey guys. Just thought I'd pop in here to ask you if texaswildfires is really someone you want to rally behind on the whole men's rights issues?

I mean right now, an hour into this submission it has 9 upvotes and moving up the r/mensrights frontpage. I see he's written some words up there with 7 upvotes already. But he's also the same guy who advocates for the genocide of women. Calling for a "quick blitzkrieg slaughter of all feminists" is quite an interesting mental image.

And here too, also submitting full posts to r/mensrights with the same ol' violent messages. I wish I could have gotten a screenshot of the time he was telling everybody that the only evil that Hitler committed was that he didn't exterminate every Jew.

Is it fully possible that he is some kind of counter-troll trying to discredit your causes? Maybe. But when's he's out in the reddit wild spouting off his rhetoric, then coming back to r/mensrights to where he is welcomed with open arms ...

You guys just had a big discussion about why no one on reddit takes you seriously and how everyone thinks you're all just a bunch of violent misogynists. This is why. You're just as sexist and narrow-minded as the people you support, even if you don't say it yourself. Just keep this in mind. Your passive majority supports your vocal minority. In time, people might not consider you a fringe extremist group.

zyk0s · 2011-11-03T15:08:21+00:00

The problem I see with this is where a woman agrees to stay home and take care of the house while the man earns his wage. The woman has given up her ability to earn a wage in order to take care of the upkeep of the house. A divorce could really screw her over with these new laws.

Title	Did China Just Take a Great Leap Backward on its Marriage Laws? (Hell no!)
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	16
Comments	49
Date	November 3, 2011 2:20 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/lyzqh/did_china_just_take_a_great_leap_backward_on_its/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/did-china-just-take-a-great-leap-backward-on-its.1032189 https://theredarchive.com/post/1032189

Comments