Discussion » Dating & Romance » Death of marriage in China...

  • Sardanapale
    Sardanapale wrote:

    It looks obvious for Western people, but i think it is a very interesting article for chinese people... and it puts a light onto the discrepancy between the “cultural discourse" and the Chinese male female relationships among young people as they are in reality... I think looking at Taiwan we can have a fair view of mainland China's future...

    http://www.economist.com/node/21526350

    TWENTY years ago a debate erupted about whether there were specific “Asian values”. Most attention focused on dubious claims by autocrats that democracy was not among them. But a more intriguing, if less noticed, argument was that traditional family values were stronger in Asia than in America and Europe, and that this partly accounted for Asia’s economic success. In the words of Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore and a keen advocate of Asian values, the Chinese family encouraged “scholarship and hard work and thrift and deferment of present enjoyment for future gain”.

    On the face of it his claim appears persuasive still. In most of Asia, marriage is widespread and illegitimacy almost unknown. In contrast, half of marriages in some Western countries end in divorce, and half of all children are born outside wedlock. The recent riots across Britain, whose origins many believe lie in an absence of either parental guidance or filial respect, seem to underline a profound difference between East and West.

    Yet marriage is changing fast in East, South-East and South Asia, even though each region has different traditions. The changes are different from those that took place in the West in the second half of the 20th century. Divorce, though rising in some countries, remains comparatively rare. What’s happening in Asia is a flight from marriage (see article).

    Marriage rates are falling partly because people are postponing getting hitched. Marriage ages have risen all over the world, but the increase is particularly marked in Asia. People there now marry even later than they do in the West. The mean age of marriage in the richest places—Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong—has risen sharply in the past few decades, to reach 29-30 for women and 31-33 for men.

    A lot of Asians are not marrying later. They are not marrying at all. Almost a third of Japanese women in their early 30s are unmarried; probably half of those will always be. Over one-fifth of Taiwanese women in their late 30s are single; most will never marry. In some places, rates of non-marriage are especially striking: in Bangkok, 20% of 40-44-year old women are not married; in Tokyo, 21%; among university graduates of that age in Singapore, 27%. So far, the trend has not affected Asia’s two giants, China and India. But it is likely to, as the economic factors that have driven it elsewhere in Asia sweep through those two countries as well; and its consequences will be exacerbated by the sex-selective abortion practised for a generation there. By 2050, there will be 60m more men of marriageable age than women in China and India.

    The joy of staying single

    Women are retreating from marriage as they go into the workplace. That’s partly because, for a woman, being both employed and married is tough in Asia. Women there are the primary caregivers for husbands, children and, often, for ageing parents; and even when in full-time employment, they are expected to continue to play this role. This is true elsewhere in the world, but the burden that Asian women carry is particularly heavy. Japanese women, who typically work 40 hours a week in the office, then do, on average, another 30 hours of housework. Their husbands, on average, do three hours. And Asian women who give up work to look after children find it hard to return when the offspring are grown. Not surprisingly, Asian women have an unusually pessimistic view of marriage. According to a survey carried out this year, many fewer Japanese women felt positive about their marriage than did Japanese men, or American women or men.

    At the same time as employment makes marriage tougher for women, it offers them an alternative. More women are financially independent, so more of them can pursue a single life that may appeal more than the drudgery of a traditional marriage. More education has also contributed to the decline of marriage, because Asian women with the most education have always been the most reluctant to wed—and there are now many more highly educated women.

    No marriage, no babies

    The flight from marriage in Asia is thus the result of the greater freedom that women enjoy these days, which is to be celebrated. But it is also creating social problems. Compared with the West, Asian countries have invested less in pensions and other forms of social protection, on the assumption that the family will look after ageing or ill relatives. That can no longer be taken for granted. The decline of marriage is also contributing to the collapse in the birth rate. Fertility in East Asia has fallen from 5.3 children per woman in the late 1960s to 1.6 now. In countries with the lowest marriage rates, the fertility rate is nearer 1.0. That is beginning to cause huge demographic problems, as populations age with startling speed. And there are other, less obvious issues. Marriage socialises men: it is associated with lower levels of testosterone and less criminal behaviour. Less marriage might mean more crime.

    Can marriage be revived in Asia? Maybe, if expectations of those roles of both sexes change; but shifting traditional attitudes is hard. Governments cannot legislate away popular prejudices. They can, though, encourage change. Relaxing divorce laws might, paradoxically, boost marriage. Women who now steer clear of wedlock might be more willing to tie the knot if they know it can be untied—not just because they can get out of the marriage if it doesn’t work, but also because their freedom to leave might keep their husbands on their toes. Family law should give divorced women a more generous share of the couple’s assets. Governments should also legislate to get employers to offer both maternal and paternal leave, and provide or subsidise child care. If taking on such expenses helped promote family life, it might reduce the burden on the state of looking after the old.

    Asian governments have long taken the view that the superiority of their family life was one of their big advantages over the West. That confidence is no longer warranted. They need to wake up to the huge social changes happening in their countries and think about how to cope with the consequences.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    China...over 1.3 billion people, 0,9 billion people only worried about get some food, some cash and maintain their own families, living from day to day .... The others, can worry about such things.....

    Sentences as China is a traditional country makes me wonder about what is the tradition?? poverty of majority, richness of the minority, oligarchy...be under dragon paws or under the The hammer and sickle??

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    Hahahahahaha ... this seems to be very biased, or just a bad sampling?

    On the face of it his claim appears persuasive still. In most of Asia, marriage is widespread and illegitimacy almost unknown[br] [br]

    Divorce, though rising in some countries, remains comparatively rare.

    Astaroth:

    well then let's move to japan

    ... actually, they have already moved there, haven't they?

  • Ecce Marce
    Ecce Marce wrote:

    Divorce rate in China is raising quickly. I just read an article about that some days ago.

  • Saint - Spartacus

    dude , in european's mind . the meaning of marriage is : '' not get dead alone ... ... "

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    My two fen: Marriage rates decline as countries develop because of social liberalization. Social inequality causes women to rely on marriage to ensure a secure future. Women who are less dependent on men have fewer economic incentives to marry.

    On the face of it his claim appears persuasive still. In most of Asia, marriage is widespread and illegitimacy almost unknown. In contrast, half of marriages in some Western countries end in divorce, and half of all children are born outside wedlock.

    I wonder, loudly, if relatively higher rates of social acceptance for abortion and infanticide are due to the Asians' superior filial piety rather than just comparatively pragmatic family planning policies.

    The recent riots across Britain, whose origins many believe lie in an absence of either parental guidance or filial respect, seem to underline a profound difference between East and West.

    Many journalists believe this is a cheap way to editorialize.

    Marriage socialises men: it is associated with lower levels of testosterone and less criminal behaviour. Less marriage might mean more crime.

    This is total bullshit. These side effects of marriage disappear under even the most cursory statistical scrutiny. Lower levels of criminal behavior by married men is explained by relatively higher socioeconomic status; marriage is a luxury that only few can afford, and people are more likely to engage in crime when they have nothing to lose.

    2/10, troll harder, Economist.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Re-Pete ought to make it clear that his pedestrian historical understanding of "family values" existed only for the briefest instant in the post-WWII American baby boom, if that wasn't readily evident from his asinine comment about the immigrants who built his country. British riots weren't caused by immigrants.

    I suppose it goes without saying that convenient explanations are even more worthless when you're comparing East and West. But I don't think there's a lot of sociological utility in comparing the East and West, anyway.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Funny that you would use "we" in reference to Europe.

    So. You think sharia-observant Muslim immigrants have "worse family values" and therefore higher rates of crime than secular liberal European socialists?

    Suuure...

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    I dont think that the acceptance of violance as a mean of solving problems (which Pete obviously is referring to and which is often heard from people who want to keep their country "clean" from immigrants from "certain countries") is related to family values.

    Anyway, if the problems related to immigration were so simple I am sure that they would not exist anymore since long time.

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    I didnt mean you, Pete, when I mentioned the acceptance of violence. I think I did not point out clearly what I meant due to my poor English. What I wanted to say is that many people refer to a so called "acceptance of violance as mean of solving problem" when they refer to "bad immigrants". It is infact a problem. In my relatively quiert and peaceful hometown in Switzerland the only violence usually comes from people with passports from South East Europe such as former Yugoslawia. The interesting fact, however, is that most of those people are not actually imigrants but people who grew up in Switzerland and failed to integrate into the society. I am not very familiar with the background of riots in England, but i researched abit about the riots in the French banlieues around 5 years ago and they seem to have similar reasons. So I assume that the Rioters in England maybe had a similar background...

    Anyway in my previous posting i wanted to point out two or three things:

    1. The problems often do not come from the immigrants itself but from their badly integrated offsprings.
    2. Some nationals seem to have a higher acceptance of violance than others (macho culture and so on) but those countries often have more traditional family values. See for example Pakistan where a bother is supposed to kill his sister when she is cheating in marriage
    3. People who are against immigration for rassist reasons often so not point this out.

    .

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I never said any specific countries which i refuse to name, but some immigrants from some countries lead by example, while others use the system and exploit it causing more damage then help.

    @Broseidon, god of the broceans, I'm not going to name any names here but somebody who I refuse to name sounds like a uselessly vague twat, and somebody sounds like someone who knows a thing or two about criminology. BROTIP: In almost all developed countries, immigrants have lower rates of criminal activity than the majority population. Why? Because they're afraid of being deported. It's that fucking simple.

    and most of these good immigrants come from countries with strong family values.

    Asians: America's model minority, amirite?

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    In almost all developed countries, immigrants have lower rates of criminal activity than the majority population. Why? Because they're afraid of being deported.

    I dont think that this is true. Could you maybe back up your claims with some relevant statistics? I worked before with the crime statistics for Switzerland and there is infact a higher crime rate among foreign passport holders, especially people in 2nd generation. If you analyse the rate further there are more problems with violent crimes such a murderer and traffic related crimes such as illegal car races while Swiss people are more likely to be involved in economy related crimes. I can only speak for Switzerland and not for other countries as i dont have the data, but I think the situation might be similar.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I have a degree in social and criminal justice.

    When you examine the statistics, you find that the single strongest determining factor for criminal behavior is poverty, and that when immigrant groups appear to have higher rates of crime because immigrants tend to be poorer than majority populations.

    It's startlingly easy to prove this: compare immigrants of higher socioeconomic status (relative to people within their ethnic group) to members of the majority population of equivalent socioeconomic status, and you'll see that the relationship between ethnicity and crime either disappears, or is reversed, because immigrants don't want to be deported, particularly the comparatively wealthy ones.

    Correlation is not causation, crackers.

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    I also hold a degree in a relevant field in sociology and its not unlikely that my degree iseven higher than yours. Academic degrees however do not mean that you dont need to back up your claims with actual facts or statistics if you want to say anything significant. I guess we dont need to argue here about the scientific methods, right?

    So, what we are talking about is your claim which you still did not back up with any evidence. Just to remind you what you have said:

    In almost all developed countries, immigrants have lower rates of criminal activity than the majority population. Why? Because they're afraid of being deported. It's that fucking simple.

    This is what I doubted and what I still doubt. And as it seems you even doubt it by yourself. Because a bit later you actually contradicted yourself with this statement:

    When you examine the statistics, you find that the single strongest determining factor for criminal behavior is poverty, and that when immigrant groups appear to have higher rates of crime because immigrants tend to be poorer than majority populations.

    There is no such thing as APPEAR in mathematics. Either they have a higher rate or not. Mathematical fact. Dont need to argue about the principle of mathematics too, right?

    After (not before) we got the statistic data we can start to have an interpretation of them. I told you already the data from Switzerland. I do agree that poverty could be an important factor. But if poverty were the determing factor then you would expect that crime rates also raise within the poorer parts of the local society, but this is simply not the fact.

    compare immigrants of higher socioeconomic status (relative to people within their ethnic group) to members of the majority population of equivalent socioeconomic status,

    You again seem to mix correlations and causations. While I basically agree on your observation I doubt that your conclusions are valid. People with a higher socioeconomic status also tend to be better integrated into the society and dont have to struggle so much with rassism, bad education, language problems and no perspectives in their career. My personal observation is that poor people who have a perspective and an aim in life are less frequently becoming criminals than richer people who have not so many perspectives.

    Plus I doubt that poor people are generally more criminal than rich people. The bigger crimes are mostly commited by richer people. For example who added this weird chemicals into the Sanlu-Milk? It was not done by some poor farmers in Hebei, it was done by some rich managers in Hebei. To put it short: If you want to argue about crime rates you have to break it down to specific kinds of crimes as I did in my previous positng.

    BTW. are you sure you really hold a degree in this stuff?

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    and one more thing about this sentence:

    In almost all developed countries, immigrants have lower rates of criminal activity than the majority population. Why? Because they're afraid of being deported. It's that fucking simple.

    In Switzerland it is relatively new that criminal foreigners can be deported. Its the so called Ausschaffungsinitiative. Before that people who grew up in switzerland and had a permament residence permission could not have been deported. As much as I know this new rule did not have any influence on the crime statistics. The only thing that happend was that the right wing politicians blamed the criminals with foreign passports less often for a while. (Maybe in an attempt to distract from the fact that the Ausschaffungsinitiative was an act of pure populism without any significant effect.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    [...] Dando was careful enough to use the word “almost” when saying “In almost all developed countries

    yep, Dando, as The Devil, is in the details :P

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    My first statement was off-the-cuff and I misspoke only slightly. It's easy to be somewhat hyperbolic when you're trying to compare national crime rate statistics globally, which is, to put it mildly, methodologically problematic for sociologists to the extreme, and is really more of a subjective question for anthropologists.

    What I meant to say is that crime rates for immigrant populations are almost always equal to or lower than that of the majority population, especially when you adjust for differences in socioeconomic status. When you compare immigrants to natives and control for differing levels of income (that is, socioeconomic status), the relationship between immigrant status and crime disappears (or is reversed because immigrants are walking on eggshells, legally speaking).

    Therefore it's more appropriate to say that crime is caused by poverty, not by being an immigrant.

    I'm denying the existence of a causal relationship between ethnicity and crime. Don't ask me to furnish evidence to disprove the conventional wizdumb that "foreigners are criminals;" you show me your evidence that immigrants are prone to criminality, and I'll be glad to poke holes in your statistical methodology.

    There is no such thing as APPEAR in mathematics. Either they have a higher rate or not. Mathematical fact. Dont need to argue about the principle of mathematics too, right?

    You seem to be conflating statistical analysis with arithmetic. Figures do not always represent the same real-life phenomenon. To wit:

    there is infact a higher crime rate among foreign passport holders, especially people in 2nd generation.

    Where I come from, there is no such thing as a "2nd generation" citizen who is an immigrant. A person born in America is by definition American (although you'll hear our right-wingers complaining about "anchor babies;" see also: WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, OBAMA?!?!). I think Germany has a similar policy of not granting full citizenship to Turks and other immigrants born on German soil. But what this means we can't make reliable comparisons about immigrant crime rates between our two countries because we have totally different legal definitions of what an immigrant is. And this is exactly how subjectivity creeps into analysis of social science statistics.

    Moreover, correlations are mere appearances of causal relationships. Just because two phenomenon coincide does not mean that one causes the other. Understand the difference?

    compare immigrants of higher socioeconomic status (relative to people within their ethnic group) to members of the majority population of equivalent socioeconomic status,

    You again seem to mix correlations and causations. While I basically agree on your observation I doubt that your conclusions are valid.

    That's a non-sequitur, (not to mention that you're a bit confused about the difference between an observation and a conclusion).

    This kind of cross-comparison of statistical factors is exactly how you go about distinguishing between a correlation and causation. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a relationship between ethnicity (A) and crime (B). There's also a relationship between ethnicity (A) and socioeconomic status (C). If the observed relationship between A and B disappears when you only compare members of different ethnicities (A) who are of similar socioeconomic status (C).

    No matter how strong the observed relationship between (A) and (B) might be, it's not causal unless it shows the same behavior when you control for (C).

    People with a higher socioeconomic status also tend to be better integrated into the society and dont have to struggle so much with rassism, bad education, language problems and no perspectives in their career.

    ...and are less likely to commit crimes because they have considerably more to lose if they get caught.

    My personal observation is that poor people who have a perspective and an aim in life are less frequently becoming criminals than richer people who have not so many perspectives.

    That's not an observation. That's a conclusion based on your observations.

    In Switzerland it is relatively new that criminal foreigners can be deported.

    Then replace "afraid of being deported" with "wary of racial profiling". The point is that immigrants are scrutinized by law enforcement more heavily than natives. They know it. And they're more careful because of it. Except for the poor ones who don't have anything to lose. They're more willing to take risks and commit crimes.

    Moreover, if police pay greater attention to immigrants because police believe immigrants are more prone to criminal behavior (and if you've ever sat in a criminology class, most cops do), then their biases are most certainly going to be confirmed by the resultant statistics.

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    @Dando was careful enough to use the word “almost” when saying “In almost all developed countries, immigrants have lower rates of criminal activity than the majority population”.

    Funny enough, Its actually exactly the same trick he blamed before the journalist using it. I quote:

    The recent riots across Britain, whose origins many believe lie in an absence of either parental guidance or filial respect, seem to underline a profound difference between East and West.
    

    Many journalists believe this is a cheap way to editorialize.

    What I meant to say is that crime rates for immigrant populations are almost always equal to or lower than that of the majority population, especially when you adjust for differences in socioeconomic status. When you compare immigrants to natives and control for differing levels of income (that is, socioeconomic status), the relationship between immigrant status and crime disappears (or is reversed because immigrants are walking on eggshells, legally speaking).

    We all know what you wanted to say. Repeating your clame does not spare you to actually proof it.

    I think Germany has a similar policy of not granting full citizenship to Turks and other immigrants born on German soil.

    Yes, the American policy is different from the one we use. In Germany or Switzerland you are swiss citizen when you posses a citzizenship. In order to posses it one person have to apply for it. For people who lived or have grown up in Switzerland or Germany (and it hink also some other European countries) its generally not hard to obtain one. Many 2nd of 3rd generation foreigners do not apply for a passport in order to skip military duty as 2nd and 3rd people have technically the same rights except for voting.

    My personal observation is that poor people who have a perspective and an aim in life are less frequently becoming criminals than richer people who have not so many perspectives.
    

    That's not an observation. That's a conclusion based on your observations.

    My fault. I did not express it clearly enough.

    I'm denying the existence of a causal relationship between ethnicity and crime.

    Its nice that you deny things you have no clue about. Not only scientists would cause this prejustice. And I strongly advice you to read more carefully. I am aware that I have a lot of mistakes in my writting but I dont think that it is so bad that my meaning is not understandable. To make my point clear one more time: you are the one who always talks about a causual relationship. If am not aware that I have ever mentioned that there is causality. But empirical data suggests that there is a correlation - a fact that is very hard to deny even for the strongest believers in hard punishments and death sentences.

    And FYI. I also dont compare data between different countries. No idea where you got tihs from...

  • Joligne
    Joligne wrote:

    soon death of marriage in everywhere!~

    what do we get married for? meanningless!~

    better be single forever.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    Hahahahaha ... after all these irrelevant crap about crimes and degrees etc etc between Olaf and 单独 ... with our sincere thanks to Monkey, and the guest appearance of who else but the Chicken man...

    We all have our own beliefs and/or faiths in "something", may be ourselves, other people (lover, family, friends), the future (work, career, or 2012), or dare I say, religion and marriage ... etc etc ... whereas we can talk rationally about most (or even all) of the things that we believe (or not believe) in, but, just getting back on track about the topic, to a very large extent, "marriage" is often not a totally rational thing ... as an example:

    I chose the "single life" option after the operation, and as much as I wanted to say that there was some rationale, both for and against, when I made the decision to revolt and chose "marriage", heehee, I honestly dont remember much (probably due to my missing brain), and even with the many ups and downs through the years, I am happy with the decision ...

    So ... either marriage or single, it is a choice, and there is no "better" for EVERYONE but only at individual level ... I have come across many who wanted to get married because they dont want to be single, but not because they want to be with a certain someone, and that's just wrong ... and even if one opted for "single life“, when the right person comes along, things will change, usually for a "better" good ...

    Death of marriage? No ... more like people losing faith and hope ...

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    (continued) ... by the way, the front page says that today (25 Nov) is 单独's birthday ...

    alt text

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Goddammit, DD! Confound you for apprising the rest of these fiends of the knowledge that I am one step closer to the grave. WLIB does not need a reminder that its dark knight of trolls is just another mortal.


    Funny enough, Its actually exactly the same trick he blamed before the journalist using it. I quote:

    ...

    The recent riots across Britain, whose origins many believe lie in an absence of either parental guidance or filial respect, seem to underline a profound difference between East and West.

    ...

    Many journalists believe this is a cheap way to editorialize.

    Emphasis added, because you seem to have misunderstood what "trick" I was complaining about. This is an error in journalistic writing, not statistics. The phrases "many believe" and "some say" are what journalists call weasel words. Sneaky journalists use them to make their particular opinions seem as though they are mainstream. You claim to have an advanced degree in sociology but are having difficulty understanding fundamental statistical concepts, so I suppose I can't blame you for not understanding the nuances of English journalism--Not that it'll stop me from showing open contempt and mocking disdain for you.

    Haha! Why should I give a shit about the nuances of Swiss crime statistics, anyway? What is remarkable about that country besides cheese, clocks, pocket knives, pikemen, and Jew gold? Piss off!

    Yes, the American policy is different from the one we use.

    America isn't alone in granting citizenship to people born within its borders; the rest of the Anglosphere does it, as do most developed countries, as far as I'm aware. Switzerland and Germany are in fact quite odd in stratifying their ethnic populations in this way, so pardon the piss out of me for not taking your erratic definition of "immigrant" into account when I was talking about "almost all developed countries."

    If you had one iota of a sociologist's verstehen, you would have anticipated that your country's data is incompatible because you are working with a fundamentally different definition of "immigrant."

    I'm denying the existence of a causal relationship between ethnicity and crime.

    No shit. Me too. One reason I believe this is because the observed direct statistical correlation between immigrant status and crime disappears or reverses when you control for income and other indicators of socioeconomic status.

    I don't have the Swiss data in front of me, but if you furnish me with your database I might be happy to stop smoking pot just long enough to hold your hand through the process of doing a quick three-variable cross-tabulation in SPSS.

    Anyway, you agree with my conclusion. But you disagree with my casual observation about immigrant crime statistics "in almost all developed countries," because the Swiss data is different (possibly due to your fucked-up definition of "immigrant")?

    Haha. Okay. You're a special person with special statistics. Go be special somewhere else.

  • Ecce Marce
    Ecce Marce wrote:

    Hahahaha.... (to be continued laughing like an idiot).

    Dando seems to be this biggest idiot on this Website. Why would a smart dick like you have to help your great scientific theory with words as fuck, personal attacks and so on. Seems you have got your made up degree in Vulgaria, right? I mean why wouuld a graduated criminolgist with medium brain end up to be an English teacher and part time editor for Chinese propaganda? I look down on arrogant and stupid people like you. But you are not even stupid and arrogant you also seem to have a lack in basic communication skills.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ...

    to be continued laughing like an idiot

    Ecce ... no, sorry, you are not LIKE one, you are ONE, and welcome to the family of idiots :)

    And now, we can laugh ...

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    Dando: In your above statement is almost everything wrong. For example ur weird idea that the Ius Solis is more widespread than the Ius Sanguinis (use google if you dont understand latin words!). I strongly advice you to research a bit before you open your mouth to avoid just bubbling nonsense.. Wkikipedia is a good source to beginn with. In your case I recommend you to read this arttcle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

    I am now off this conversation. I prefer to talk to people who challange me with their intellect and not with personal attacks.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... liar liar ... pants on what?

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    Hahahahahaha ... Chicken ... this "place" is never quite the same without your presence, especially your hypocritical comment when you take sides ...

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    Godfather: Yes, i have noticed that... Its a pity that one or two people can totally destroy the niveau of a discussion board.

    Sardan: You actually agree more with what I have said and not so much with the twisted trash Dando had written here.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    @Alof G. Dumd up. U made good points. I'm loving it the way u r lecturing. More power brother, never be intimidated no terrorised

  • Shaney
    Shaney wrote:

    dont think its a China specific issue...btw fyi, its kina old news on Economist if i remember it right:-)

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    It's old one, I read this sometime ago for sure Shaney

  • Mengmeng
    Mengmeng wrote:

    What stance did this writer hold? It seems he tried to point out a social phenomenon but combined too much self-contradicatory opinions.

    Economic success is not happiness, Asian countries don't rank very high in Forbes' Happiness Index table. And the most terrible crimes in countries like China are committed by rich people who have better parental guidance oppotunities, these crimes are too common to hit news like the London riots.

    Late marital age is unavoidable in the turning of this conservative society: many people believe in having career before marriage, and they have to finish more education before working. Here comes the dilemma for women: it's hard for them to find a lover (not a match) after late 20s, the traditional value don't give much credit to educated and independent women. Therefore, some of them would rather to stay single than compromise to the tradition.

    I personally like the death of marriage:

    • Marriage itself was not invented for the reason of love, it was merely for mutual interests and a declaration that one is the property of the other. If human believe we are advanced animals who have sex and produce for love, there should be no marriage.
    • Marriage in China has been long taken as a ritual of life and the prerequisite for having children, which are especially emphasized on women. Without marriage, women can have more freedom. And during the transition, there will be low birth rate because lots of women who not only hold the traditional value but also accept independence won't have children. This is sad, but in any abrupt change of society, there were always one or two generation suffered from the aftershock. The good aspect is it might alleviate the population problem.
    • There will be less corruption without marriage. People are more like to use guan xi for the interests of and between family members, if there is no such strong bound, most people won't risk their personal interest for others.

    I can only think of one negative consequence of it: One can't have the 2 weeks marriage leave.

  • patrick or 潘云迪

    Marrige is the death of all romance

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    Hahahahaha ...

    Marrige is the death of all romance

    Patrick ... have you ever been married?

  • Joligne
    Joligne wrote:

    There will be less corruption without marriage. People are more like to use guan xi for the interests of and between family members, if there is no such strong bound, most people won't risk their personal interest for others.

    good point. hahahaha.

    marriage is only for rich people to stay rich stay monopolizing. the rest of the world. kids are certainly useless. there are too many people everywhere.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Ten years later, I occasionally ask myself the same question. Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a "good enough" mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn't even cross my mind. I'd been in love before, and I'd be in love again. This wasn't hubris so much as naivety; I'd had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn't envision my life any differently.

    More here

  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:

    Marriage is really good for nothing. What does that piece of paper bring to anyone? Except tax advantages in some places. Well and the right to legally have a kid here...

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    That means singleness is good for something.

  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:

    Not being married does not necessarily mean being single!

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ...

    What does that piece of paper bring to anyone

    ... heehee ... why would anyone worry about the paper?

  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:

    Well seems a lot of people do since they get married.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... heehee ... I remember my wife asked me to bring it when I came here in 06, but damn if I remember where it is now :)

    I was about to say that ... if they are (or he is, or she is) worried about the piece of paper, then this marriage is perhaps just a trade ... and then I remember that certain Chinese regulations (e.g. the stupid hukou thing) require "legal marriage" or something ...

    Anyway, the paper is just for any of the "legal" stuff ... e.g. if a foreign alien wants to legally stay with his/her beloved, or an "easy option" for someone to leave his/her home country to go overseas etc etc etc ... but, otherwise, it is nothing more than a legal status, yes, just a piece of paper ...

  • Malin Aaker
    Malin Aaker wrote:

    What I mean is getting married IS getting that piece of paper.

    Anything else that marriage seems to promise can be achieved without actually getting married!

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ...

    Anything else that marriage seems to promise can be achieved without actually getting married

    Agree, and there is really no argument about this ... but at the end, what it boils down to, is how the two individuals view "marriage", not just the paper ...

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... heehee ... I wonder if this might be good enough a reason for people to get married? 2012 soon, so probably not?

    alt text

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Olaf,

    Sardan: You actually agree more with what I have said and not so much with the twisted trash Dando had written here.

    I sense butthurt, and I think you should leave it up to other users to determine with whom they agree. Besides, you said previously that you agree with my conclusion but not with my observations (or was it the other way around?) So now it looks to me like you're less concerned with the truth than with seeking forum recognition for being a master debater.

    Granting citizenship by right of birthplace is observed across the entire Western hemisphere and at least partially almost everywhere else in the developed world; at the very least, children of legal immigrants (and in America, those of illegal immigrants) are more able to obtain citizenship than their immigrant parents.

    Notice that I'm not calling them immigrants, but children of immigrants.

    I say this because you've missed the point, because the "points" you're trying to score are exceedingly trivial. Your original complaint--that my observations are wrong because they don't match some mysterious Swiss crime statistics you casually browsed awhile ago--is absolute horseshit as long as the data includes so-called "second generation immigrants"

    Which, by the way, is oxymoronic.

    There's no such thing as a "second generation immigrant." Children of immigrants might be "second-class citizens" (or less) in your country, but they're still "native" to whatever piece of earth they were born on, and if they're included in your "immigrant" data, then that data is not congruent with data from countries that do not base citizenship on blood quantum. Not that I care whether jus soli or jus sanguine is more pragmatic. What matters is that there is a difference in how "immigrant" is defined, not which definition is "more right." Law, especially regarding territorial sovereignty and citizenship, is arbitrary and subjective, as are statistical analyses based on these legal categories.

    So when you say things like "There is no such thing as APPEAR in mathematics," and then fail to understand something as simple as comparing three or more variables so you can make sure that you're not confusing APPARENT correlation with ACTUAL causation, you make me think that you're not really much of a sociologist, but a mere wikipedophile or an exceedingly conceited economist who thinks he studies a "natural" science just because he looks at numbers sometimes.

    Anyway, my point--which was completely tangential to the discussion until you decided you wanted to split hairs over it--still stands: Being an immigrant makes a person no more likely to commit a crime than a native citizen, and sometimes less likely. They appear to commit more crimes (there is a statistical correlation) because they are poor. When you control for socioeconomic status (i.e. income), the apparent co-relationship disappears or is reversed, and it becomes apparent that it was poverty, not nationality, which is causally related to criminality. In the latter case, I conjecture that it is because immigrants are concerned about being deported (in America) or because they have fewer rights and legal protections than citizens.

    @Ecce, I'm a full-time proofreader of party propaganda and I haven't taught even a private lesson of English in nearly a year. I hate to even dignify this with a response, as it's not that there's anything wrong with being an English teacher. I did it for three years, and I only regret that I was awful at it but nonetheless got paid an awfully large amount money anyway. Thus I feel that people who use the label pejoratively are just envious of the unfair surplus of opportunities afforded to people who are (or can pretend to be) native English speakers.

    tl;dr

    @Ecce, Olaf, If you're going to be whiny cunts who complain about insults, you might drive the point home by eschewing weaksauce insults like "idiot," "trash," and "English teacher," or at least come up with something that actually stings.

    if you challenge him you become either a looser or a Nigerian drug seller.

    @Godfather, It would be more correct to say that what I say is only challenging to losers and Nigerian drug dealers. No one with a brain or a sense of humor follows me around this website and interjects themselves in threads with the sole purpose of insulting me.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    (continued) ...

    No one with a brain or a sense of humor follows me around this website and interjects themselves in threads with the sole purpose of insulting me

    alt text

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Back to the topic:

    I agree with most of what @MengMeng said about women having fewer incentives to marry.

    Marriage itself was not invented for the reason of love, it was merely for mutual interests and a declaration that one is the property of the other.

    This is most certainly true in Western countries, but I'm hesitant to condemn monogamy in modern China, because it probably did a lot more to elevate the status of Chinese women in real terms than nearly any other social policy. Compared to the miserable situation of women under the system of rigidly patriarchal polygamy in dynastic China, monogamous marriage was a necessary evil and the first step toward making women equal.

    Of course, I think the policy was motivated less by a cultural infatuation with romantic love, but to put marriage within reach of the Average Zhou. Marriage now is nothing more than a vestigial institution, a cultural leftover of a time in the not-so-distant past when women were regarded as nothing more than baby-factories.

  • Olaf G.
    Olaf G. wrote:

    No wonder you failed as an English teacher, dando. You seem to not not even understand your mother tongue.

  • Martin Svean
    Martin Svean wrote:

    As probably in any country that is in its developing stages, this is a sign of things to come. Changes are good and to see how the women of China are getting more power, money, rights is a good thing.

    I wouldn't be shocked to see this rate continue to grow as many people get married for the wrong reasons anyway.

    To marry someone for the sake of getting something is a shame anyway. People should marry for love, not for the ability to "get something".

  • patrick or 潘云迪

    I said I would stay out of this but I made a comment a while back and YES I believe in it and NO i have not been married. And unless I meet the girl of my life will I ever intend to do so. I have enough experience to give a good opinion but then again an opinion is only that and not fact. Ok so lets start. lets go first of all with the Irish marrige. Rather brutal and sadistic state i must say and the fact religion is involved is terrible too first example " a wife in order not to go to hell and be a good catholic wife must perform her conjugal rights" in other words must perform sex on deman of the husband. Actually for saving a dictionary link the definition of "conjugal rights is as such : the sexual rights and priveleges conferred on husband and wife by the marrige BOND"

    Right with that out of the way lets move on, personal experience: immediate family ok enough said its a failure marrige and said rights and yes for those who are a bit up in the thing marrige can be bought in ireland and what i mean by that is that you can choose how long you want to marry and yes marrige is still illegal the eyes of the church and thou shalt burn in the depths of hell amidst fire and brimstone.

    now technically you can devorce and in the government its fine but yes looked down upon and you do face the whole process of being excommunicated from society. One thing you have to do is spend 4 years in seperation from your spouse, and then after you have proved you have been away from him then you can file for a divoce. so you cant just say right im over this i need out and bang you get a divorce no you need to wait for four years. and yes you need to contact peopl called mediators but in bold writing its put that it should be noted that meditors are not legal advisors. so wait i need to go through this guy to get to that guy who then puts me into the civil court to only file for a divorce. Anyone else see that this is like a Lion jumping through hoops of fire?

    Ok now lets look at the so called Benefits of marrige.... as far as i have looked around and once again from parents and others i find there is strength in numbers and not one joint group. government financial offices are harder on married couples than single people. Why would that be, well actually its becasue so many people marry to gain the marrige bonuses so what have the governments done? they just got rid of them. another thing and this im still pretty pissed off about it. I lost my fine Irish name of mackey or "mac eoigh" for some piece of tail garbage name for some irish indian name. Ok i wont make it political but being called Reddy was another beautiful thing of marrige, ohh yes the person has to take the name of the male, rubbish. the minute my step dad kicks the bucket im reverting back to Mackey.

    ok a bit off topic. but its another disdain of marrige. Actually ive said enough i think ill leave on one thing, During my time in China I have met many people marry for the wrong reasons, I know one fine lady who im endeared to and she married and after a small period of time divorced because as we all know marrige does not solve problems at all in fact it makes them. I said it is the the death of romance becasue it encourages conformality and the whole though of having to be nice and do something special every day is through into the four winds of old and disgarded like helmets after war and marrige allows a kind of preverbial ball and chain to be put on either part.

    If people are responsible enough and they love each other they will stay with each other they dont need to be so parasitic and swallow up names and become mechanic. if people are going to split up they will regardless of the title being single or married. ahhh damn i need a drink after this. cliche i know.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    As a side question, was patriarchal polyamy that widespread in imperial China, or was it just confined to affluent families

    @Sardanapale, Even if the practice was restricted to affluent families (and I'm sure it was, if only because traditional marriage entails an exchange of wealth), the effects of diminished expectations of carnal fidelity, along with fewer available potential wives, could manifest elsewhere in the form of a heightened necessity and acceptance for prostitution, and ostracism of the younger sons, not to mention that daughters become regarded as commodities.

    Again, I think traditional marriage in the West is a vestige of a distant past where women were treated as property, and the real purpose of the marriage contract was to guarantee reproductive privileges. The Chinese history of marriage is substantially different, and the introduction of monogamous marriage was nothing short of revolutionary. But It's still a deeply flawed social institution that unfairly stratifies women. That more women are deciding not to marry is a good thing and not something that'll make me lose sleep at night--I have no expectation that 剩女 are desperate to knock on my bedroom door.

    No wonder you failed as an English teacher, dando. You seem to not not even understand your mother tongue.

    You're wonder-impaired. Your verstehen, in the specific sociological sense of the word, is scheisse. Go English teach with Ecce, you English teaching English teacher. What's with this nauseating repetition of the English teacher insult trope? Speaking of mother tongues, methinks U MAD 'cuz I taught your mother English. We exchanged languages.

  • Saint - Spartacus

    @ Mengmeng " I personally like the death of marriage:

    Marriage itself was not invented for the reason of love, it was merely for mutual interests and a declaration that one is the property of the other. If human believe we are advanced animals who have sex and produce for love, there should be no marriage.
    Marriage in China has been long taken as a ritual of life and the prerequisite for having children, which are especially emphasized on women. Without marriage, women can have more freedom. ....  bla bla bla ''
    

    well , i totaly not agree to all mentioned above in this point , as an independent indivisual , i can hardly see the influence by marriage , after all it's a sign , and you life gose as what you used to be . i think it's just an personnal point about a '' woman 's situation in marriage etc '' , what this type of '' woman''is ? eh .

    i think if a person have enough personality and rules and ... bla bla bla . , nothing changes , and noting will change neither , marriage or not , so don't Put all the blame to marriage ...

  • Saint - Spartacus

    @ Mengmeng " I personally like the death of marriage:

    Marriage itself was not invented for the reason of love, it was merely for mutual interests and a declaration that one is the property of the other. If human believe we are advanced animals who have sex and produce for love, there should be no marriage.
    Marriage in China has been long taken as a ritual of life and the prerequisite for having children, which are especially emphasized on women. Without marriage, women can have more freedom. ....  bla bla bla ''
    

    well , i totaly not agree to all mentioned above in this point , as an independent indivisual , i can hardly see the influence by marriage , after all it's a sign , and you life gose as what you used to be . i think it's just an personnal point about a '' woman 's situation in marriage etc '' , what this type of '' woman''is ? eh .

    i think if a person have enough personality and rules and ... bla bla bla . , nothing changes , and noting will change neither , marriage or not , so don't Put all the blame to marriage ...

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc