The Economist Suggests Western-Style Family Law as Solution to Asian Marriage Crisis

by W.F. Price on August 22, 2011

In one of the most insane suggestions to appear in the press in recent years, a writer for The Economist argues that the solution to plummeting marriage rates in Asia is to introduce Western-style divorce and family law. The writer points to trends that have been ongoing in Asia for some time now as it develops, but comes to the wrong conclusion about how to solve them.

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.

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%…

Asian studies departments in the West have become bifurcated, with one faction following the traditional historical, political and economic course of study, and the other the anthropological, artistic, religious and, yes, gender course. The former is still a fairly comfortable place for a young man, but the latter has become the typical neo-Marxist feminist domain. The writer of this article has most likely studied anthropology in the context of Asia, which has become stuffed full of genderist garbage, and is probably a committed feminist (who else would advocate Western-style divorce as a “solution?”).

According to the article, women won’t marry because work is a better alternative:

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.

The author is incorrect. What we are seeing here is not women fleeing the drudgery of domestic life, but rather plain old hypergamy at work. In many parts of Asia, young women now earn more than young men. Asian women are as happy as ever to marry up, but that’s becoming increasingly difficult as men no longer have an advantage as providers. In fact, in a return to tradition, Chinese women are now increasingly turning to polygamous arrangements as disparities in wealth become wider. It’s better for them to share a rich man than to have a poor man all to themselves.

In addition to the marginalization of young men, property prices have gone through the roof in Asia. Young couples – especially more modern-minded ones – tend to delay marriage until they can afford a place of their own.

However, rather than address the issue of the declining status of the average male in Asian society, the author argues that the solution is to further empower women relative to men by introducing Western family law:

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.

All one has to do to see that this arrangement won’t work is take a look at what happened to marriage in the West following the implementation of these “reforms.” Giving Asian women the legal upper hand over husbands would have roughly the same effect it has in the West: illegitimacy would skyrocket, and it would no longer be only women who were skeptical about marriage, but men as well. A further exacerbating factor in Asia is that prostitution is culturally tolerated to a degree unknown in the West. Men who felt that a wife was too much of a risk or bother would simply hang out with their friends and use hookers for sex. If marriage is made riskier and more expensive, the prostitution industry will grow to monstrous proportions.

If there is anything about Western society not to emulate, it is our insane divorce laws. The solution to the marriage crisis in Asia is not to legally castrate men, but rather to restructure the economy so that they have more opportunities to provide for a family. It’s quite disappointing to see The Economist taking such a wrong-headed approach to this problem, but I suppose this is the result we ought to expect from our feminized universities and the vapid pundits they promote.

{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }

Firepower August 22, 2011 at 08:51

In one of the most insane suggestions to appear in the press in recent year

So true.

Asians have their own way of growing and eventually imploding – like the USA – so they shouldn’t follow our path down this particular path to HELL.

Unless, it is a grand nefarious scheme to eliminate Asians as economic competition. Really, how much more sabotage could be done to them by hanging the ambition-killing specter around a man’s neck of a vicious witch-wife waiting to suck the profits out of his entire life’s work.

What a Killer to Capitalism

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
SingleDad August 22, 2011 at 09:00

It looks like China is rejecting this idea, posted today, at divorce, the one who bought the family house, get’s the family house. From the article the family house is like the “kids” are in the West. The family house is the largest family asset and most important thing women look for in a guy after his job or course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8714097/China-tries-to-stop-women-marrying-for-money-rather-than-love.html

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Dalrock August 22, 2011 at 09:05

What struck me about the Economist’s piece is that they didn’t really make the case for women being on a marriage strike in Asia. The stats weren’t very impressive:

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%.

What they are saying is around 15-20% of Asian women won’t marry. For example, they say 1/3 of early 30s Japanese women aren’t married, and half of those probably won’t marry. This works out to about 15% of Japanese women. This is hardly a crisis. The same with Taiwan; 20% of late 30s women are single, and most of these will never marry. Sounds like about 15% of the total population of women to me. The most dire stat was the 20% of 40-44 year old women in Bangkok. This is a major city, not an entire country, and this is the worst stat they could find? This is a manufactured crisis.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer August 22, 2011 at 09:09

I got no problem with this so long as we get Asian style whoring here in the U.S., which is inevitable anyway as the world “flattens out” and we become more third-world as China becomes more first-world.

In the not too distant future when a fella goes to the “barber shop” he will be greeted by Heather, Madison, and Chloe, who will be eager to attend his needs in support of paying off their student loans.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 3
AmStrat August 22, 2011 at 09:12

We’re reading this wrong. The economist clearly sees this as a crisis of too many marriages happening and have offered a solution, which is guaranteed to work.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
TFH August 22, 2011 at 09:17

I saw this article yesterday and thought of The Spearhead.

This means they actually consider Western-style misandry to be superior. They think it OK to make divorce laws more lucrative for women in order to encourage marriage and ‘keep the husband on his toes’.

The sad truth is, Western misandry is STILL not dissuading enough men from marriage. There is no real marriage strike yet, that is large enough to truly affect the market. Not yet.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
oddsock August 22, 2011 at 09:17

Firepower

“Unless, it is a grand nefarious scheme to eliminate Asians as economic competition. Really, how much more sabotage could be done to them by hanging the ambition-killing specter around a man’s neck of a vicious witch-wife waiting to suck the profits out of his entire life’s work.”

The best way to destroy economic competition is to export feminism to a country. They are trying already in quite a few developing regions. I believe Singapore women are head and shoulders above their western sisters in gold digging. The TV is responsible for filling many a womans head about streets being paved with gold in the west.

I was in the Philippines a couple of times and I tell you what shocked me the most. There is an amazing amount of gay men. I even heard of some women being so desperate for a husband they were willing to share a guy or a husband. Another surprising thing I noticed. There appears to be a major imbalance of women V men. Most families seem to consist of girls/women.
I asked about this and a few people told me that there is usually 2 or 3 girls born to every boy.

One final observation on the Phils. I can sort of understand why a lot of Pinnoy men would not wish to marry simply because of the levels of poverty and type of jobs available for the average guy. IMHO a lot of them are probably saying ” feck that ” ? And, there being an abundance of women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer August 22, 2011 at 09:23

On the plus side however it will keep vital geezer-dollars here at home since the old prunes will see better opportunity cost benefits in improved local pussy resources vs. exorbitant (and ever increasing) airfare and lodging. Not to mention reducing risks from opportunistic tropical diseases.

The money they save will also provide more opportunities for “Sugar Daddying” right here in the U.S., concommitingly improving economic prospects across the board.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Will August 22, 2011 at 09:26

“In the not too distant future when a fella goes to the “barber shop” he will be greeted by Heather, Madison, and Chloe, who will be eager to attend his needs in support of paying off their student loans.”

You’re right Elmer, every female student is a potential prostitute in the making, once the economy takes a nosedive and they can’t pay their loans.

Makes you wonder if the primarily Female university attendees aren’t intentionally being sold a “bill of goods” regarding the value of their university “education”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
TFH August 22, 2011 at 09:34

Welmer,

Perhaps add a link at the end of the article abotu where to write letters of complaint. Maybe this could be a standard practice for this type of article, where at least some of us can complain.

Same with Carey Roberts and his VAWA article. There should have been contact info at the end about who to complain to in Congress. If even 2-3 of us write/complain, it is better than nothing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
TFH August 22, 2011 at 09:39

As in, letters to the Economist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 22, 2011 at 09:44

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 32
oddsock August 22, 2011 at 09:47

Will

“You’re right Elmer, every female student is a potential prostitute in the making, once the economy takes a nosedive and they can’t pay their loans.”

As Esther Vilar (a woman) so truthfully observes: ‘by the age of 12 at the latest, most women have decided to become prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned a future for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all the work.

In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make use of their vaginas at certain given moments . (At that point) any real possibility of communication between the sexes ceases. Their paths are divided forever’.

Unlike her more ethical sisters, the street prostitutes, who deal in honest transactions, the average woman trades sex (or more often the promise of sex) for gifts and entertainment and a lifestyle. Her body is simply a tool to get what she wants from men, an impersonal device designed to extract maximum profit.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2
Ulysses August 22, 2011 at 09:56
Will August 22, 2011 at 09:56

“Unlike her more ethical sisters, the street prostitutes, who deal in honest transactions, the average woman trades sex (or more often the promise of sex) for gifts and entertainment and a lifestyle. Her body is simply a tool to get what she wants from men, an impersonal device designed to extract maximum profit.”

Oddsock, This is why I am in favour of legalizing prostition. Plus it would kick the pedestal out from under the entitled princesses.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
namae nanka August 22, 2011 at 09:57

“It’s quite disappointing to see The Economist ”

I don’t know, the last thing I read from them was the killing of baby girls in the womb. That conveniently gets called as “my body my choice” back home.
It’s also funny that the argument, “why have a baby when the parents won’t care for it” is not applied to children of marriage.
“why marry and divorce when the children you have will be worse off?”
Go eat, pray and love instead of marrying and then making them miserable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Alan B August 22, 2011 at 10:08

i wonder why the huge hangup with the act of MARRIAGE.
On one hand the author laments the fact that marriage appears to be phasing out, and on the other hand suggesting making getting out of marriage easier.
Everyone that writes these articles seems to think that the act of getting married will solve something. If getting married is so simple, and getting UNmarried is just as simple.. whats the fucking point….. other than family court?
Do they think that people dont have children out of wedlock? what will the act of marriage solve? Do they think “keeping a husband on his toes” will keep marriages alive? what happens when the women doesn’t have mind her toes?? shes the educated, working one, what happens when the so-called pendulum swings and women are the “head of the family” and they want to eat-pray-love? what happens to the poor man and HIS CHILDREN? will the divorce laws be written sex-neutral?
i just don’t understand why people think MARRIAGE will save anything.. its a fucking piece of paper, that means nothing except if “shit don’t work out.. some bitch is gonna get paid” at least that’s my opinion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
The Trend August 22, 2011 at 10:09

Maybe Asian men are avoiding marriage because they are good at math.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 88 Thumb down 0
oddsock August 22, 2011 at 10:13

A must listen. It describes perfectly todays women.

Defense Against the Psychopath

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgGyvxqYSbE&feature=player_embedded#!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
oddsock August 22, 2011 at 10:28

Will

“Oddsock, This is why I am in favour of legalizing prostition. Plus it would kick the pedestal out from under the entitled princesses.”

And that is exactly why it is has so much opposition from women and womens groups. Basically they know that once prositution ( sex) is easily available their arse is out the window. Refer back to the original post on Asia and perhaps my observation of the Philippines. Allow me to expand on that a tad. Many Asian countries have poverty and a glut of hot women, that IMHO is a major factor in reduced marriage. As the saying goes, why buy the cow when there is so much milk going for free. ( up to now, usually a much higher quality milk than in the west )

Lets be blunt here for a mo. How many men do you think would even bother talking to todays women if she did not have tits and a pussy ? How many women do you know that you could spend many hours or days with engaged in interesting conversation or leisure persuits?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
Rocco August 22, 2011 at 10:43

@ Oddsock

Legalized prostitution must return after having been outlawed by women in the US after they obtained the right to vote outside of the family.

This will result in much more balance in the war against men, commonly mislabelled the “war of the sexes”.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Towgunner August 22, 2011 at 10:48

Amstrat is right. The East is too traditional and has too many families still intact. Family is the enemy of socialism and feminism, so, something must be done about it. The economist is just proving that it can sink to new lows. This is the same magazine that proudly reported that in the US women became 1/2 the workforce while we all suffered in a recession…that is still going on.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
keyster August 22, 2011 at 10:49

I worked in a tech segment that was the very first to move maunfacturing off-shore (mid-1980′s), to Singapore and then to Maylasia when Singapore got too expensive. The ex-pats would be sent over there for a year or two at a time to run things and they’d always end up with a gorgeous secretary. One friend of mine had a former Miss Singapore as his “Girl Friday” who he ended up marrying. He was short and fat, she was taller than him and striking, (an Asian 11). The marriage lasted a couple of years until she fleeced him in US divorce court and went back home.

I suppose economists (and socialists, same thing), choose to ignore hypergamy because it’s sexist and makes women look selfish and not very “equality minded”; its the blue pill at work; ignore the elephant in the room.

I can say that Asian women adopted feminism full stop 20 years ago. Many of the companies I worked for in the 90′s had little platoons of them that you’d have to navigate around to get anything done. They were mean, vicious and nasty to interact with, (because that’s the way they thought they had to be to overcome patriarchy).

They soak up our popular culture like a sponge, so it’s no surprise that feminism caught on like it did. It was packaged as a very compelling concept for all women, not just western women. “Be independent of some worthless man, get a job and make your own money just like he can, have fun with your girlfriends until the handsome executive asks you to marry him. Then become angry and bitter in your 30′s that no man you liked wanted you, settle on a desperate beta and take your misery out on him until you divorce.”

Why are women worldwide choosing this life course?
Because it seems to work for them, and men don’t seem to mind…
…and who cares what they think anyway?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
Rocco August 22, 2011 at 11:24

@ Keyster

Well said, great post.

I think women fell for feminism for the money, shoes, handbags and desire to do nothing all day, laziness.

Throwing men under the bus was a perk.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Savethemales August 22, 2011 at 11:27

This misandry bubble is global. How much good does it do to expat when MGTOW is much better anyway? Marriage is on it’s way out, but that’s actually good for men since marriage is wage slavery for men anyway. The marriage strike is quickly gaining momentum and will make a big effect by 2020.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 22, 2011 at 11:50

Well at leaste so for asian women respect family enough to not get knocked up at 19 and expect everybody else to take care of her. When CS laws of the west get there its game over. I’m with dalrock so what.
Singledad
The one thing I like about communist is that they don’t bullshit when it comes to some things. The communist can see our emasculated men (welmer posted an article with them getting their asses kicked ) and they don’t want that girl power shit in their country. They understand the concept of the beta man working to acheive and the value of him realising the fruits of his labor as a way to drive the population of men to produce. Imagine how polite a woman would be married to that beta chump. A girl power femminised bitch would be free to do it for her self. Either way the communist gets productive people or people that are polite to the productive. (The american dream was supposed to do that here)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Firepower August 22, 2011 at 12:38

oddsock

Firepower
The best way to destroy economic competition is to export feminism to a country. They are trying already in quite a few developing regions.

It’s facetious to actually believe it’s part of That Grand Plot.

The real reason is simple, and obvious: Western Liberalism seeks to “liberate oppressed wo-min” in the east as it similarly did for itself.

Liberalism amassed GREAT Power in doing so. Unchallenged Power.

I believe Singapore women are head and shoulders above their western sisters in gold digging. The TV is responsible for filling many a womans head about streets being paved with gold in the west.

Western (American) men who fantasize foreign girls as permanent untainted fruit had better get their Mrs. in the next decade.

That unspoiled ‘tude is
Going
Going…gone

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Firepower August 22, 2011 at 12:42

Rocco

Legalized prostitution must return after having been outlawed by women in the US …

Realistically – not gonna happen.

Unless, you want to wait until you turn 134.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) August 22, 2011 at 13:06

“Family law should give divorced women a more generous share of the couple’s assets.”

Lays it all pretty bare doesn’t it.

I like how giving assets to women is supposed to “keep husbands on their toes”. I am yet to see one of these feminsts talk about keeping wives on their toes…oh..that’s right…all wives are perfect. Silly me.

With respect to prostitution. It is lawful. It is only illegal.

How can an agreement between two parties where both benefit to their satisfaction and no injury harm or loss is caused be unlawful?

It can’t be.

The sooner men stand up for themselves and tell cops to keep their noses out of other mens trousers the better off you would all be.

As to the article?

I find it hysterical how these stupid feminists always portray it as “women are not marrying because they have alternative ways to support themselves” as opposed to the real reason. The men are refusing to marry.

One only has to live in Germany a short time to see the hysterical stupidity of such a statement.

Because I am alpha with a great track record of being a “father and husband” and I have the ability to earn money I have women lining up to have a chance of marrying me. It is good to be at the top of the tree for a change. Shame the tree is about to fall but I am ok with that too. Those below me will cushion my fall.

As my new business venture fleshes out over the next few years I see the following happening. Men will band together to corner the income generation for many areas and they will insist on the “women as chattel property” marriage contract if any marriage at all…..men will exert their dominance in all things that are useful and productive in a competitive environment where they operate outside “guvment control” and the assets they corner will provide women galore.

I am with Angry Harry on this one “men farm cattle and sheep, why not women?” Women have always been “attracted” to the one they think will pay for them. Since we were living in caves. Women are no different today than they were 10,000 years ago. It’s just that we had a highly dystorionate PR system telling us “sugar and spice and everything nice” for a few generations.

I think all the men here have dispelled that little lie for themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
keyster August 22, 2011 at 13:09

“I think women fell for feminism for the money, shoes, handbags and desire to do nothing all day, laziness.”

It’s all about the power.
If you lacked sexual power over men as a young woman, you now have an alternative recourse. And that’s socially mandated/state enforced equality as an identifiable victim class.

The bitter school marms and barren old maids of yester-year became the feminists of today, spinning up tales of oppression and fomenting hatred of men in all other women. Women wanted to know why they were not content and feminists gave them the reason in a slick packaging of words; the result being women are less happy today then they were then, or perhaps ever…because it’s her nature to be unsatisfied, and man’s duty to please her.

It’s best young men understand this verbotten natural law and how to best navigate his way through it should he encounter it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
PeterTheGreat August 22, 2011 at 13:12
DCM August 22, 2011 at 13:38

Since socialism is wrecking the West and we likely won’t recover for a few generations anything that will weaken competing societies is good for us. We may have begun to recover by the time they reach the social depths we are hitting now.
It isn’t that I wish evil on people in general, it’s just that people organized in governments will attack those they see as weaker than they are. Disorganizing those groups will help keep us safe without having to fight them or even harm them directly. It will also devastate their birth rates.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Rocco August 22, 2011 at 13:53

@ Firepower

IMO, that is why for men it’s best to move to Asian countries.

Having prostitution as an outlet be plentiful, relatively safe (tests, checkups etc), and affordable, changes the man/woman equation in the same way that punative divorce with men loosing everything, including their futures and their children make simple men/woman relationships unsafe for men in the West.

I make good money in the West, I was happy in the East.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
TFH August 22, 2011 at 14:03

DCM,

No.

For one thing, the US would be in an even deeper recession if not for exports to those countries.

Second, it is an extremely negative thing to wish misandry on other societies just ‘so that they don’t get ahead of us’. A terrible idea, and no different than feminists who seek to harm all men and boys.

It would be better to move there, rather than wish them ill.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Jonathan Mann August 22, 2011 at 14:17

Marriage is a death trap for men in the West, and now feminists would like to expand the suffering to men in the East as well. With one of the most sound predictors of violence in a country being the number of unmarried men living in it, I think that the riots going on in Britain now will look like a Main Street Parade in comparison to the chaos that lies in wait for the civilized world if feminists get their way.

Oh, well. Maybe its for the best. Maybe thats what it will take for our governments and society as a whole to wake up and understand that feminist governance is the primary problem with the West today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Dubliner August 22, 2011 at 14:40
PeterTheGreat August 22, 2011 at 14:57

Rebel@
“I think that the underlying problem (the equivalent of the mega volcano in Wyoming…) is the fact the this planet is actually infested with humans.”

Actually the planet is not overpopulated. The problem is that there are too many non-productive people who need to be weeded out.

St. Paul’s principle of “If a man does not work, neither let him eat.” needs to be applied to keep civilization from collapsing here, in Europe in China, and elsewhere where productive people are being swamped by “victims”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
PeterTheGreat August 22, 2011 at 15:04

Firepower
“The best way to destroy economic competition is to export feminism to a country. They are trying already in quite a few developing regions.”

Indeed they are. I’m told it is part of Voice of America programming to promote feminism, pornography, homosexuality, etc. to destablize other countries.

Islam has already lost, they just don’t realize it yet. Within 10 years feminism will control Islamic countries and they’ll put the men to work supporting them like here. The women there want all the baubles of “the good life” too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
PeterTheGreat August 22, 2011 at 15:10

Rocco
“Legalized prostitution must return after having been outlawed by women in the US …”

I think it will go the way of Russia. Prostitution in Russia is illegal, but it is everywhere. It is how the girls pay for their clothes, their rent, their education, heck, their life.

Most are part-timers and put out when they need money to buy the stuff they can’t get on their salaries.

As said above, when the girls are forced to pay for their worthless degrees, we’ll see them asking for “sponsors” like the Russian girls do. Coming soon!

And when 20 year olds are available for $50 an hour for great sex, why marry or keep a sourpuss?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
PeterTheGreat August 22, 2011 at 15:12

TFH @

“For one thing, the US would be in an even deeper recession if not for exports to those countries.”

Our imports from China, et al., are necessary to stablize and “develop” those areas. That is the real truth. When China can sell us enough junk, they will go into revolution. China is riding the tiger.

Want an idea of what’s coming politically? Read Friedman’s “The Next Hundred Years”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sage Advice August 22, 2011 at 15:24

Protecting the institution of marriage by instituting western family law?

In the same way, you can fireproof your house by stocking it to the brim with gasoline soaked rags and plenty of plugged in space heaters.

In the same way, you can keep people from drowning by tying 10 lb lead weights to their necks.

In the same way, you can prevent car accidents by mandating that drivers take two shots of Everclear and one dose of Ecstasy every time they get behind the wheel.

Looks like they’re aiming for success again…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
greyghost August 22, 2011 at 15:35

The student loan debt will be a boon. I wonder how many will be surrogates,egg donors and mistresses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
E-Sizzle August 22, 2011 at 16:42

“and is probably a committed feminist (who else would advocate Western-style divorce as a “solution?”). ” Funny and true.

What does this guy even care. Typical though. The guys who write these things are always looking to fix someone else’s problems, even no one’s asking for their help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Bob August 22, 2011 at 16:49

Good Idea! The pandemic of F5S1, bacilus feminea suprematia (a.k.a feminism), is spreading world wide. This way China will collapse like every others and will not be able to dominate the world. India and whole Western world are infected by F5S1 and in paliative care.

If some one wanted to reduce drasticaly the world population Female Supremacism a.k.a. feminism is the best way to achives this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
ruddyturnstone August 22, 2011 at 16:52

I wonder how the authors of the Economist article can be so sure that it is women who are rejecting marriage in Asia, rather than men. They seem to take it for granted that Asian men are just dying to marry, but are being turned down. From other articles I have read, however, there seems to be a pretty strong trend, in Japan especially, for young men to “drop out” of society, and, in Western terms, go MGTOW.

Again, from what I’ve read (I have never been to Asia), marriage for men in Japan is a pretty crap deal. They work hard, for long hours, and on weekends, rarely taking vacations or even days off, for decades, and then, if they live long enough to retire, they find out that their wives have gotten used to them not being around. The wives have made nice lives for themselves, on hubby’s hard earned paychecks, and when hubby retires, they don’t want him around the house. In one article I read, the retited man’s wife resented that he wanted her to make him lunch. Another woman was more blunt about it, saying that she just didn’t like him hanging around the house all the time! Unbelievable! The house that his wage slavery bought her, and that she had the run of all those decades that he was out killing himself to pay for, should, in her view, I suppose, be “off limits” to him except as a place to sleep. The husbands want to spend time with their wives, and do things with them. In return, the wives want nothing to do with them, and even have a nasty name for them…something like “wet leaves,” to mock them for their alleged “clinginess.” Sometimes, the wives go so far as to divorce the guy, force the sale of the home as part of the settlement, and then go and live with their daughters and son in laws. Meanwhile, the retired guy ends up living by himself, all alone in a little apartment.

Perhaps this scenario is not lost on young Japaneese men, and young Asian men generally. Just what is the reward for a lifetime of faithfulness and hard work? Children, perhaps. But how well does he even know his kids, and how strong are their ties to him, if he has spent his life in the office or the shop slaving away long hours to support them and his wife? Social approval? Yes, but at what price? Better, perhaps, to drop out, live as cheaply as possible, not be a slave to one’s job (because one has no wife and children to support), and let society get by on its own, without one’s little contribution. And, meanwhile, enjoy life a little. What a horrible thought! A man enjoying himself, and not slaving away to keep princess in her castle!

Moreover, as Asian women become generally more like Western women (and notice, most of these stories are coming out of the big Asian cities, where Western influence is more prevalent), they are becoming as unattractive to Asian men as Western women are to Western men. Who wants a pain in the ass wife, who will never be satisfied with anything about you or anything you do? Who will always think and act like she did you some big favor by marrying you, rather than the Prince Charming/billionaire/rock star bad boy of her hypergamist dreams. Materialist to the nth degree, selfish, superficial to the core. These are the attributes of modern women, whatever continent they happen to live on. She will marry the richest guy she can, complain every day of their lives together, contribute nothing to the family income, and then be bitter and moan about the “career” that she “sacrificed” to raise the kids. Why would any guy want that, Western or Asian?

Sure, out in the rural areas, there might be farmers who want to marry, so that they can have kids and pass the land on down to them. And, yeah, many of the women who would have been their wives have moved to the big cities, leaving a local wife shortage in their wake.

But, in the big cities, in the modern countries like Japan, I wonder how many twenty- and thirty- something guys have come to the realization that they coudln’t give two shits for getting married, and leading the lives of misery and deprivation that their fathers led, just so they could father a bunch of kids that they will hardly ever even know. And that’s the real reason why marriage rates are dropping. Not Ms. Strong and Independent Asian feminist who doesn’t want a husband.

We know that here in the West, the feminist media continually misrepresents what is happening in terms of the decline of marriage. To them, it is all about the grrrl power super chicks, smart, sexy, successful and empowered, either frightening the boys away or simply being too good for them. We are told, over and over, that we will have to simply learn to pull up our socks (do more housework, be more ambitous, become “better listeners,” grow up, learn to multitask, whatever) if we ever hope to land a modern gal. When the truth is that it is the women who are dying to get married, and that men, more and more, are telling them to shove it. Women love weddings and marriages. Men don’t. Women have strong reproductive drives. Men are driven by the urge to have sex, not babies. Women still want a husband (if only for his resources) to pay for her way, and her children’s. And this is as true for Asian women as it is for women in general. In fact, it is even greater, because in the West there is now almost no stigma at all attached to single motherhood, but there is still is in at least some parts of Asia. Men can take or leave marriage, especially if sex is available elsewhere. And, in Asia, where prositution and various other forms of commercial sex are safe, legal, widespread, and without religous or traditional disaproval, this can only be more of an option. As another poster put it, why not have fun with one’s friends and use hookers for sex? Why not indeed. Avoid not only the perils and heartache of marriage, but the whole dating scene too. Too “beta” to score with the chicks, but not “beta” enough to want to sign up for a lifetime of slavery? Well, simply rent one out for as long as it takes to orgasm, and then dismiss her as one dismisses a waitress at the end of a meal.

Here we are told that it is the marriage and divorce laws that are holding women back from marriage in Asia. But, could it be that it is the men who are holding them back. They see that marriage is already a crap deal for men, and changing the laws to make it even more so won’t do much to encourage them to marry, no more so than it has done in the West. Just the opposite.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
crella August 22, 2011 at 17:03

“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.”

And this is good for Asia, how?

Pet Peeve- all of Asia lumped together as one entity in American news sources…but that’s par for the course, unfortunately.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price August 22, 2011 at 17:53

Pet Peeve- all of Asia lumped together as one entity in American news sources…but that’s par for the course, unfortunately.

-Crella

Crella, the latest fad is to lump “monsoon Asia” together into one gigantic entity. This cuts off a significant part of NE Asia (including about 1/3 of Japan and China and half of Korea), but is convenient from a certain academic POV. Unfortunately, this academic POV is interested mainly in consolidating departmental admin and roping “Asian studies” into some manageable BA and graduate programs. It is counter-intellectual and counterproductive, but it’s all about the budget these days, and you’ve got to work around the tenure they gave those token profs.

IMO, it’s about time to eliminate tenured positions. Too many of the jobs are political appointments staffed by mediocrities.

greyghost August 22, 2011 at 18:02

ruddyturnstone I love your post. That is the whole reason for MGTOW to make a sitiation like that here. I have also read of the “grass eaters ” of Japan. They also don’t have the welfare that the west has and men of the asian cultures don’t have the pedestalizing of women cultures that we have in the west.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
DCM August 22, 2011 at 19:55

“TFH August 22, 2011 at 14:03

DCM,

No.

For one thing, the US would be in an even deeper recession if not for exports to those countries.

Second, it is an extremely negative thing to wish misandry on other societies just ‘so that they don’t get ahead of us’. A terrible idea, and no different than feminists who seek to harm all men and boys.

It would be better to move there, rather than wish them ill.”

I don’t wish them ill. I even said so in my previous post.
It’s just that I am realistic. People who see an advantage over someone else will either try to take their stuff away or enslave them or both. The US that the leftists want to destroy is one of the few nations that has learned better.
It also appears from the evidence, and I’ve never been there, that Asian females are beginning to become like Western females. This will seriously weaken those countries just at the point where the elites are trying to destroy the West. It’s simply a situation to be taken advantage of in the sense that it will probably minimize the harm they can do us as their institutions degenerate into sloth and dependency.
Since we’ve been dealing with the female problem a long time we will have the advantage, especially if more and more Western women realize they aren’t men and have a different life cycle.
Taking care of your own civilization is not “wishing evil” on others. They don’t have to fall into this trap and already have us as an example.
I do hope Islamic lands are seriously compromised, however, since their fringe groups are especially vicious and fanatical. It would be for the good of the entire world. Unless you want to go talk to them and have a nice sing along and smoke some dope. Yeah, that’ll fix things.
Take care of yourself and yours while causing others the least harm you can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Evolved Ape August 22, 2011 at 21:10

You must realize that although liberal ideas and feminism will spread to China, there must be one more thing necessary to turn their country into the feminist police state that ours have become: the right to vote. It’s only once the women get the right to vote that they will start to usher in endless liberalization through politics which will enable them to create a nanny state / police state like ours. They would go ahead and vote themselves no fault divorce and child support for single mothers and an endless welfare state and all the nonsense we have here. Until that happens the damage feminism can do will be limited.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence August 22, 2011 at 21:51

The Economist wants to enslave more societies by promoting hyperconsumptive females and cowed males. Take India for example: notice how Feminists are suddenly really interested in “empowering” Indian women just as the credit card companies set their sights on that country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
davver August 22, 2011 at 21:53

Check out this game called “Catherine”for an idea of modern Japanese view on women/marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous August 22, 2011 at 22:12

Will August 22, 2011 at 09:26
“In the not too distant future when a fella goes to the “barber shop” he will be greeted by Heather, Madison, and Chloe, who will be eager to attend his needs in support of paying off their student loans.”

You’re right Elmer, every female student is a potential prostitute in the making, once the economy takes a nosedive and they can’t pay their loans.

Makes you wonder if the primarily Female university attendees aren’t intentionally being sold a “bill of goods” regarding the value of their university “education”.

Feminists Hate Everything Masculine
August 19, 2011

By Phyllis Schlafly

I hope that one of the results of my new book The Flipside of Feminism will be to show the American people that the feminist movement was never about equality. It was always about interchangability, and when the facts of human nature are too overwhelming to make men and women interchangeable, feminists are determined to get rid of anything that is truly masculine.

A good example of feminist maliciousness toward men is the way they have used the power of Big Government in the Department of Education to abolish hundreds of men’s college sports teams, particularly the sports that are too masculine for women to play. I knew the congressional sponsor of Title IX, and she certainly did not plan it to be a sword to punish men or to enforce bean-counting quotas. She merely wanted equal opportunity for women. But the malicious feminists have used Title IX as a sword to force colleges to abolish hundreds of men’s athletic teams, so many, in fact, that they have discouraged large numbers of men from even attending college, and colleges are now nearly 60% women.

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/08/19/feminists-hate-everything-masculine/

Feminists Hate Everything Masculine
Submitted by anthony on Fri, 2011-08-19 21:08.

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17096

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert August 22, 2011 at 22:13

Feminists Hate Everything Masculine
Submitted by anthony on Fri, 2011-08-19 21:08.
Article here. Excerpt:

‘I hope that one of the results of my new book The Flipside of Feminism will be to show the American people that the feminist movement was never about equality. It was always about interchangability, and when the facts of human nature are too overwhelming to make men and women interchangeable, feminists are determined to get rid of anything that is truly masculine.

A good example of feminist maliciousness toward men is the way they have used the power of Big Government in the Department of Education to abolish hundreds of men’s college sports teams, particularly the sports that are too masculine for women to play. I knew the congressional sponsor of Title IX, and she certainly did not plan it to be a sword to punish men or to enforce bean-counting quotas. She merely wanted equal opportunity for women. But the malicious feminists have used Title IX as a sword to force colleges to abolish hundreds of men’s athletic teams, so many, in fact, that they have discouraged large numbers of men from even attending college, and colleges are now nearly 60% women.’.

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/08/19/feminists-hate-everything-masculine/

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17096

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Robert August 22, 2011 at 22:15

“The Flipside Of Feminism”
Submitted by anthony on Sat, 2011-08-20 02:16.
Article here. Excerpt:

‘Author Suzanne Venker, a Warson Woods resident recently transplanted from Kirkwood, has some words of advice for freshmen co-eds entering college in a few weeks: Stay away from the women’s studies classes.

Venker’s book and her outspoken commentary have garnered plenty of kudos from the likes of Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, David Limbaugh and more. She has appeared before the conservative Heritage Foundation and is scheduled for an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” a morning show on Rupert Murdoch’s cable television news channel.

“I advise college students to read about successful women, not about all this victimhood,” said Venker. “My favorite thing to do is to speak to college audiences to give them a different view from what they get from their professors.

“I don’t ask the students to accept what I say now,” added Venker. “I just want them to be exposed to the truth. Some day down the road a light may go off in their heads, when reality sets in, and they realize they’ve been told a lot that is not true.”‘.

http://www.websterkirkwoodtimes.com/Articles-i-2011-08-05-176290.114137-The-Flipside-Of-Feminism.html

http://news.mensactivism.org/node/17101

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Venom Froggy August 22, 2011 at 22:38

“Can marriage be revived in Asia? Maybe, if expectations of those roles of both sexes change. . . ”

Ohhhh, real clever, you fucking snake!! Make it sound as if you’re LIBERATING men instead of disenfranchising and enslaving them!

I don’t know who to be more enraged with. The author who wrote this deceptive piece of trash or the majority of idiot males who will actually fall for it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
SKeptik August 23, 2011 at 00:33

@ Herbal Essence: The Economist wants to enslave more societies by promoting hyperconsumptive females and cowed males. Take India for example: notice how Feminists are suddenly really interested in “empowering” Indian women just as the credit card companies set their sights on that country.

Yep.
Now the insatiable transnational corporate beast is ready to devour fresh meat.
They’ve effectively hollowed out the west – the bankers have looted it large.
The managers exported the factories and jobs to Asia.
They’ve gone hand in hand with feminists/politicians who’ve brought in feminist family ‘law’ which disincentivizes men getting hitched and having kids.
But in the process together these two parties have effectively pulled off the biggest heist of all time – a massive profit for them as they’ve ripped the family apart into more and more atomized single person units – (They can sell more to a society where every SINGLE person has their own TV, Washer, car etc) AND the biggest transfer of wealth in all of recorded history (from men to women).
But the jig is finally up and it’s gradually juddering to a halt..
The cupboard is now all but bare in the west which is drowning in massive debt for generations to come, and despite the feminist bullshit that tries to convince men otherwise men there have begun wising up to the parasitic hypergamous feminist relationship/marriage machine.
End result is the birth rate is plummeting like a rock, so there’ll be less people to buy corporate produced stuff.
And that’s even BEFORE the non hormonal male birth control pill kicks in.

So time for the corporate vampire juggernaut to move on to fresh fields.

Asia – Ah, now there’s a killing to be made!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
SKeptik August 23, 2011 at 00:40

@ Herbal Essence: The Economist wants to enslave more societies by promoting hyperconsumptive females and cowed males. Take India for example: notice how Feminists are suddenly really interested in “empowering” Indian women just as the credit card companies set their sights on that country.

Yep.
Now the insatiable transnational corporate beast is ready to devour fresh meat.
They’ve effectively hollowed out the west – the bankers have looted it large.
The managers exported the factories and jobs to Asia.
They’ve gone hand in hand with feminists/politicians who’ve brought in feminist family ‘law’ which disincentivizes men getting hitched and having kids.
In the process together these two parties have effectively pulled off the biggest heist of all time – a massive profit for them as they’ve ripped the family apart into more and more atomized single person units – (They can sell more to a society where every SINGLE person has their own TV, Washer, car etc) AND the biggest transfer of wealth in all of recorded history – from men to women.
But the jig is finally up and it’s gradually juddering to a halt..
The cupboard is now all but bare in the west which is drowning in massive debt for generations to come, and despite the feminist bullshit that tries to convince men otherwise men there have begun wising up to the parasitic hypergamous feminist relationship/marriage machine.
End result is the birth rate is plummeting like a rock,
And that’s even BEFORE the non hormonal male birth control pill kicks in.
So there’ll be less demand for corporate produced stuff.

So time then for the corporate vampire juggernaut to move on to fresh fields and try repeating the process.
Asia – Ah, now there’s a killing to be made!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
E August 23, 2011 at 00:51

The Economist argues

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.

*straight from the horse’s mouth*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) August 23, 2011 at 04:26

Speaking of money related things…I am sure this is news elsewhere.

So. Is DSK going to be compensated for the losses he suffered as a result of a FRA? I think we all know the answer to that.

This is why I recommend to men to not participate in the “legal” system. It is clearly corrupt and no man can be forced to accept the services of criminals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028684/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-scandal-Prosecutors-drop-maids-sex-attack-charges.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
bruno August 23, 2011 at 05:09

“Family law should give divorced women a more generous share of the couple’s assets.”

Here is where the writer shows his/hers true face: the real feminist agenda of this article.
ANY situation, ANY problem, ANY social reality is good enough to come to the conclusion: “Women must get more power over men”.

Even when the marriage situation in Asia was completely opposite of what it is today, the writer would come to the same conclusion: “Women must get more power over men”.
That’s the whole of feminist “journalism”, disguised as an article about marriage in Asia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Mothergoose August 23, 2011 at 05:14

The only thing that surprises me about this excellent article is the surprise the author shows at finding such a daft idea in The Economist. Does he not know that The Economist is a mouthpiece for NWO?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
crella August 23, 2011 at 05:19

“Crella, the latest fad is to lump “monsoon Asia” together into one gigantic entity. This cuts off a significant part of NE Asia (including about 1/3 of Japan and China and half of Korea), but is convenient from a certain academic POV”

Interesting, I didn’t know that. Thank you for explaining it to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Firepower August 23, 2011 at 11:48

PeterTheGreat

Firepower

Indeed they are. I’m told it is part of Voice of America programming to promote feminism, pornography, homosexuality, etc. to destablize other countries.

While I admire your spirit, it is incredible to conceive this country – that cannot conquer Vietnam or a tribe of henna-soaked goatherds in Afghanistan – as competent enough to engineer some mass-induced (successful) Global Conspiracy.

American Intelligence couldn’t figure out Osama was living in the militaristic “West Point” capital in Pakistan – our “ally.”

Islam has already lost, they just don’t realize it yet.

It is outright wrong to presume Islam as on weaker foundations than the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
PeterTheGreat August 23, 2011 at 13:02

Firepower @

“While I admire your spirit, it is incredible to conceive this country – that cannot conquer Vietnam or a tribe of henna-soaked goatherds in Afghanistan – as competent enough to engineer some mass-induced (successful) Global Conspiracy.”

There is no doubt that the U.S. could conquer Vietnam or any other country if we really wanted to. There is a difference between controlling and conquering. Why conquer when you can control.

Friedman in “The Next Hundred Years” points out that we don’t understand American policy. Basic American policy is to control the world, not conquer it. In conflict areas we win by not allowing anyone else to win.

Costs less in men and money. If we really wanted to conquer a country we’d give the military a green light and tell it to make it happen, and they would. Instead, due to policy constraints to simply deny anyone else a victory which can upset American power, they have limited goals which do not include conquest.

“American Intelligence couldn’t figure out Osama was living in the militaristic “West Point” capital in Pakistan – our “ally.””

Most intelligence operatives, from what I’ve read, believe Osama was dead years ago. But this op gave Obama a “victory”, and showed that he could be a tough guy. Right.

Islam has already lost, they just don’t realize it yet.

It is outright wrong to presume Islam as on weaker foundations than the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Classic Joe August 23, 2011 at 18:01

@firepower – go live in an islamic country. At least go someplace else. We could nuke vietnam or afganistan in a few minutes if we wanted. Kill every last one of them. You’re such an idiot.

As I age I lose interest in arguing with folks as dumb as you. Your mom tastes like chicken. You’re a blowhard. You’re a cunt. You make no sense. aaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! The curse of firepower…. so much dumb…… bah, who cares. noisy retard won’t shut up, not news.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
David K. Meller August 23, 2011 at 19:28

Interesting how it is a British periodical (and look at how poisonous THEIR women are) who is now keening with anticipatory delight at the prospects that EEC Asian competitors are beginning to encounter the same difficulties with the modern women of the far East, along with the attendent–and probably consequent–economic difficulties which they cause, that the West has suffered through for the past half-century, if not since WWI.

It is certainly a possibility, however, that many Asian men (and the women who still love them) will NOT accept the unisex, gender-egalitarian, dystopic future where “women” rule–and ruin–the world offered to them! We are, after all, talking about people who have had ample opportunity to see what damage feminuttery and unisex have inflicted on the Western world, and to say that they will supinely accept the same toxin polluting THEIR families and society may be expecting too much!

Asia–especially China, but also Indochina, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, among others–has a far longer and healthier tradition of patriarchy than Christendom. Sometimes this came out in forms which impress us as unduly brutal, e.g. “foot binding” for Chinese women, or the horrid female genital mutilation that was commonplace in too many Moslem communities a generation ago, and still sometimes occurs, but it nevertheless shows that we are dealing with people who might not accept the consequences of feminist poisoning once it becomes obvious, and that not only marriage will return, but marriage on a much more traditional, patriarchal, and family-based ‘model’ than prevailed in the West, at least since the Roman Republic, c. 220 BC.

Confucianism might provide a model for such a future contrafeminist future, if enough Asians want it! Governments will frantically oppose this, of course–who do you think foists the feminist toxin on us in the West?–but there is a possibility that government, at least in the top-heavy, bureaucratic, centralized, “imperial” models characteristic of the world since around 1648 is dissolving and coming to an end! I don’t know what will replace it, but it at least it–or they–might be considerably more “male positive” and “gender friendly” and pro-family than the current bloody mess we have inherited with the dreadful pax-America and the “American century!

There is also the possibility of interesting cross-fertilization. I wonder what Moslem, Buddhist, or Confucian scholars may think of some of e.g. the Anglo-Saxon common law traditions–and resistance–which Spearhead contributor Peter: Andrew-Nolan discusses here (all too briefly, and often disagreeably) on these pages. Even if the stark individualism impresses such people as chaotic and selfish, They may be impressed with his idea of a private contract with wives in effect completely submitting them to their husband’s judgement and authority (if I understood it correctly). There are certainly other contributors as well who have made interesting remarks and suggestions as to what to do with the feminist sewage drowning us, and even if they disagree with us in the way we arrive at our answers, the answers themselves may be very inviting to newly dispossessed and disenfranchised, and even unemployed Asian, mid Eastern or African men!

I don’t know, and in fact doubt, if it is yet time for a Japanese (or other Asian language) edition of the Spearhead, but communication should certainly be kept open, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to learn from, and to teach, our brethren overseas, and if we survive the coming years, we may emerge, both East and West, stronger than we ever were before, and MUCH stronger than we are now!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Anonymous August 23, 2011 at 19:32

Memo to the Chinese Dictator and his cabinet:

Ignore this article from _The Economist_ promoting feminism and matriarchy. Matriarchy is badly dysfunctional. Watch our news from your dish antenna. If reading history and watching news about punk asses popping innocent kids instead of rival punk asses, try this. Go to Wikipedia (on your uncensored connection) and look up the Chicago neighborhood of Englewood. Get the GPS address from Wikipedia. Build a Mars rover and put it in a missile set for that GPS address.

Once it lands, drive it remotely. What you see is what matriarchy creates in the end. If you want to use it for propaganda purposes, just photoshop in Chinese people to replace the people shown.

Have a nice day, Mr. Dictator.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
bruno August 24, 2011 at 04:02

All governments of the world will be very happy to adopt feminism, and to put the principles of female domination into legislation.
Feminism is the perfect tool to divide and conquer the own population. To create a permanent civil war inside the country, between men and women.
Give the women superior rights over men, create blatant discrimination of men in every aspect of the relationship between men and women, its a guarantee for a never ending all-consuming conflict.
Men and women and children are the victim of this.
The only one who is laughing is Big Government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Firepower August 24, 2011 at 11:04

PeterTheGreat

Firepower @

There is no doubt that the U.S. could conquer Vietnam or any other country if we really wanted to.

Oh, what glorious tales of history could be wrote, if “could” were an actual accomplishment.

Classic Joe

Your mom tastes like chicken. You’re a blowhard. You’re a cunt. You make no sense. aaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!

Your skill at
logically refuting statements with fact
is impressively patriotic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Kris W August 29, 2011 at 01:52

Think of feminism as a toxin one ingests, then empties by diarrhea into a stream. Now imagine your enemy uses this same stream and is down river of where you had your bowel movement.

It is designed to create a “whip-lash” type effect to cripple Asia/China. Millions of already dis-empowered/starving young men+ the continual empowerment of women= civil war/social collapse.

It really is fairly clever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kris W August 29, 2011 at 02:00

By the time the West “recovers” from this misandry, the East will be neck-deep in it.

It is a very Anglo type tactic, akin to how the Anglo’s gave the “natives” blankets with small pox on them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David K. Meller September 1, 2011 at 17:30

Feminism is now, unfortunately, a global disease, polluting the West–or what is left of us–more severely than the rest of humanity, but Asia, the mideast, Africa, Pacific Islands, Central and South America and the Carribean.

Obviously countering the ideas and philosophy of this noxious and destructive ideology with something better is necessary. It cannot be begun too soon!

The primary source of infection seems to be colleges and universities, which are already “serving” women more than they are men. Degreed and brainwashed sheeple (mostly female but also some males) then go on to occupy offices in government (on local, provincial, and National levels) with its attendent civil service, the Business and Corporate environments–at first mostly with and through “affirmative action” but eventually female applicants outnumber males through attrition and brain drain, as men disappear either to pursue independent career paths on our own, or “drop out” in ever greater numbers–the entertainment and “news”media–heavily influenced by advertising catering to female overspending and credit anyway, and ever more inclined to accomodate women (and girls) at the expense of men, both in terms of content and direction.

To be forwarned is to be forearmed! It is past time for men–and women who love us–to be familiar with feminism, with their strategies, with their (ab)use and exploitation of the law-enforcement apparatus, with supporting men’s rights and father’s rights organizations, and most importantly, reconsecrating the male in his importance both in the family, and even more importantly–in the world outside the home!

Highlighting information sources not only from the internet, but old-fashioned books and videos by men–and women–who are well informed as to the menace of feminism and women’s “equality” and sharing this with one’s fellows can be helpful. Study groups of major works critical of feminism–both online and face-to-face–are also helpful.

Never miss an opportunity to point out where women screw up, with their intervention in the larger society, and highlight their ineptitude, narcisisstic self-absorbtion, and just plain STUPIDITY as mercilessly as possible wherever you can! Historic and intertemporal comparisons of events are always flawed and risky, as there is never perfect consistancy in the events prior to the disaster which make it up, but where you can, highlight similar incidents in the past (when accidents or tragedies were handled far better, and by MEN) and now, when they are utterly mishandled by women (or by men under the authority and direction of women) would serve to highlight instructive comparisons.

The assertion of women having some “natural right” to “equality” should also be challenged, both theoretically and empirically. There can be no right to something that doesn’t exist–and cannot exist–in nature, and any and all attempts to secure such a “right” through legal or political means must be illegitimate! It should therefore not be illegal to “discriminate” against women in work outside the home, since such “discrimination” would be rational and justifiable! Women would, in all likelihood be INFERIOR in such work, as well as denying it to far more capable and qualified men! This could be extended as opportunity warrants into other areas of the economy and society, with the understanding that women would indeed be supported, protected, and hopefully loved and cherished, by their once again high-earning husbands–in exchange for the understanding that married women have little or no place outside the home, and she would be, for all practical purposes, like a minor child in the larger world. This was the way it was in civilized societies for generations, if not centuries, before this feminist madness began, and this way–or something very much like it–is the way we should end up!

This is certainly NOT the only way we have to liberate ourselves, along with our sons-and daughters– from the “women’s liberationists and their deranged decendents, and it may not be the best for all people and circumstances, but it is an effort to at least THINK about ‘where we go from here’! Anybody with better–or simply different–ideas, please come along and offer them for discussion here! Every little bit helps!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Stan Rains October 28, 2012 at 10:48

The author proposing Western style divorce laws must be very uninformed about Asia. It is widely known in Asia that the extreme feminism of western style divorce law has already been implemented, in Japan for decades. It is the reason that so few men actually marry. The young men who only see draconion child support as the result of any effort to have a family and children are now called ‘Rafters” because they ride the current of time making just enough money to enjoy their sports, hobbies, computer games, and the like. They no longer strive to be attractive husbands in the marriage game. They have seen the degradation and poverty of those ahead of them who married and saw their children, wealth, and future income stripped for them because a faithless wife got bored, had a particular bad monthly cycle, or was already sleeping with her new ‘squeeze’. The current Western system of divorce law incentivizes women to divorce and disincentivizes the more intelligent men from marrying or having children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: