Presumably, some children's shoes already know that the draft of the Supreme Court's revision of the Marriage Law has poked out of the basket, and more and more people on the Internet, especially men, have launched fierce criticism of it, and the voice is getting louder and louder. According to the development of this situation, if there is no public opinion control, even if it is the Supreme Court, I am afraid that it will inevitably be sprayed into a sieve on the Internet!
So, why did this practice arouse the indignation of so many people, especially men? To put it simply, from a male perspective, this is a typical white-left female fist practice:
First, let's take a look at the beginning of the draft:
The beginning of this article itself is very interesting, everything is guaranteed, but men are not protected.
Of course, we can roughly understand the logic of this statement (on the surface): it is nothing more than that in reality, most of the social resources are controlled by men, and women are in an overall disadvantaged position, so it is necessary to give them some preferential treatment and protection.
That's not wrong in itself. But the problem is that there has to be a degree to everything. After all, marriage is not a coercive act - at a time when the marriage system is gradually disintegrating, more and more people are disgusted with marriage, rejecting marriage, and the marriage rate is declining year by year, the necessity of marriage for the public, especially for the main owners of social resources, is declining year by year. After all, in reality, men, that is, the main possessors of social resources, have paid relatively more material foundation for marriage, and paid more tangible resources - housing, cars and the main responsibility of supporting the family, most of which are borne by men (or pay more resources), through the form of law, further strengthen the woman's possession of the material base (on the whole, mainly the material base of the man), which will undoubtedly enhance the man's disgust and rejection of marriage, and further reduce his desire to marry.
Therefore, judging from the explanation of the intention of the amendment at the beginning, there is a serious fallacy in the intention of this amendment itself - it has already tacitly acquiesced to the reality that men occupy more social resources, so it is necessary to give more material compensation to women through marriage.
Since the intention of the amendment is to think in this way, the following specific provisions can be imagined:
For example, the third article, which is also the most controversial, is as follows:
This one is actually quite interesting. Obviously, the person who presided over this revision also thought that his own revision of the law was very unfair to the dominant party of social resources (in reality, mainly men, and a small number of women with stronger ability or superior family conditions), and combined with the current social trend of the collapse of the marriage system, the marriage rate after the amendment led to a further sharp decline. So in order to save it, such a thing was created, which not only at the economic level, but also linked cohabitation and de facto marriage as much as possible. And the logic is nothing more than that you can get married, but you can't have physical needs, right? You can't do without reproductive needs, right? If you don't get married, then you can get stuck from sex and fertility, and see if you can escape!
Of course, sexual needs are primitive animal instincts, but in reality sexual needs are not only satisfied by a fixed sexual partner - of course, the fixed sexual partner model is relatively healthy, and most men (at least traditional men) are still willing to satisfy their primitive impulses in this way. But if the price paid for this health model is too high and the risks are too great, then they weigh the pros and cons and can only achieve it through a non-health model.
Isn't this just forcing a good person to become a prostitute?
Of course, practitioners may take it for granted that as long as the woman refuses, the man just wants to ask for a prostitute, and there is no partner. However, in reality, this is impossible, and the difference between physiology and psychology determines that in reality, women's ability to obtain social resources is inherently weak—this is an objective reality that does not depend on the will of the practitioner. Originally, they could have received some compensation from men through the form of marriage, as well as the non-material contributions in marriage. But as more and more men, especially those with greater access to resources, voluntarily abandon marriage due to the excessive requirements of marriage laws – this means that women, especially those whose material needs outweigh their own means (in reality, this makes up the majority of women), loses the channels through which marriage can be reasonably and legally rewarded.
But the channel is lost, but the demand is not extinguished. In this case, more and more women with low labor skills but high material needs can only choose to meet their material needs by catering to the changes in the needs of dominant men (dating or prostitution) - so by amending the marriage law, over-oppressing men to protect women can only backfire in the end!
As for fertility, this is even more of a big problem. The culture of infertility in order to evade responsibility is becoming more and more prevalent among the younger generation, and the revision of the Marriage Law can only exacerbate this tendency of the dominant resource holders.
The funniest thing is that the original intention of the cultivators should be to see the trend of more and more people refusing marriage, so they hope to give women a certain amount of compensation and protection by linking cohabitation with de facto marriage. But in reality, this is actually a further blow to marriage in disguise, promoting cohabitation to replace marriage - men who are already less willing to marry will increasingly refuse marriage on the grounds that cohabitation is equally secure.
As a relatively weak woman in terms of labor access to resources, because her material life depends on men's support to a certain extent, as well as the restriction of childbearing age (men drag women can't afford it), so there is no natural lack of bargaining power in this game. As a result, many people who could have been married are now forced to accept cohabitation, so it will accelerate the disintegration of marriage - it is tantamount to making cohabitation a weak protection for women instead of a legally strong guarantee for marriage.
And the most bizarre one is the following:
Article 20: After divorce, poverty alleviation is required, and the party who has financial difficulties and has no residence shall have the right of residence for a certain period of time.
As we all know, in the marriage of ordinary Chinese people, the RV is mainly provided by the man (or bears most of the expenses), and the amendment only mentions the protection of women's rights and interests in the initial formulation of the law, but not the protection of men's rights. Therefore, although this article seems fair, in fact it is mainly convenient to deprive men of their property in the event of divorce to compensate women.
The reason for this strange logic is probably because of the widespread hype on the Internet, and women generally pay more labor for the family. This is also generally true - it is true that in most Chinese marriages, women pay more for housework than men. But while acknowledging women's housework, we can't ignore the fact that in most Chinese-style marriages, men also bear the lion's share of the family's finances.
So, the two sides are actually leveling. The party with a weaker ability to obtain resources is more likely to prefer household chores, while the party with a stronger ability to obtain resources is responsible for earning money to support the family - this is very much in line with the principle that the money is strong and the effort is strong, and the efforts and rewards of both parties are reasonable. Article 20 clearly violates this basic principle. As soon as this article comes out, I am afraid that not only most men, but also a small number of truly capable modern independent women (not those fairy-style independent women who rely on financial support and have independent personalities), I am afraid that they will not dare to enter marriage easily.
In fact, there are many similar clauses, such as alimony, premarital property division, etc., which are basically scolded on the Internet - not only mainstream men, but also many women who have a strong ability to obtain social resources or have a relatively rich family background, and only one kind of person is warmly welcomed - that is, the pastoral female boxing fairy who is generally a maid and a young lady!
Therefore, the logic and direction of this revision are also obvious - this revision very well caters to the interests of this kind of female boxers who are high-eyed, high-handed, leisurely, and hard-working, and they are of course warmly welcomed.
On the bright side, it may be that some people want to strengthen their marriages and protect the interests of women, especially those at lower levels. But in fact, according to the materialist principle that existence determines cognition, from a practical point of view, this practice will not only not have the above effect, but on the contrary, it will make the majority of men, as well as a small number of high-quality women (women who are really capable, or at least have a family background, rather than the high-quality women that the dick fairies think they think are), generally choose to escape from marriage.
And when the advantage of social resources is generally obtained by those who flee from marriage, or even avoid cohabitation, it may be that low-skilled men can also get a little cheaper by being supported by rich women; but the socially common channel for low-skilled women to obtain stable material returns from men through reasonable and legal channels of marriage is also cut off! As for the fertility rate, they are all playing like this, what kind of fertility are they talking about!
Therefore, it is no wonder that as soon as the revision came out, there were complaints on the Internet:
I wanted to write a little deeper—and that's the part that I didn't think about. Because I think that the Supreme People's Court's amendment to the law, as well as the local legislation that Fujian Province has just introduced (which stipulates that women can check their spouse's assets with documents - but does not give their husbands the same treatment), is not only a violation of the principle of fairness, but also a kind of infiltration of the top-level design of our legal system by the political correctness of the Western White Left Women's Fist. But after the text was written, I felt that writing like this might poke a bigger basket, and when the time came, don't talk about the article, and the number will be gone. So, let's delete it and just talk about it.
At the moment, this thing is only a draft for comments, and everyone can give their opinions, and if everyone has no opinions, it will become a fact. If you don't talk about anything else in the future, you will have to rent a house even if you live together, otherwise, the following results will occur:
Send us an email with your comments! The deadline is April 30th.