Happier Abroad Forum Community

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-cry.html

"According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety."
Sounds reasonable to me.
...

"Yang Yiyan is one woman who could be forgiven a few tears. The 31-year-old travel agent came out of the Chaoyang office with her now former husband, but they went their separate ways immediately after two years of marriage. Now, she is homeless. "My ex-husband bought the apartment before we were married, so under the new law I'm not entitled to anything," said Mrs Yang."
*Looks about for tiny violin*
She wants half the value of a house. that she didn't buy. for the "service" of living there for two years.
The entitlement mindset must be endemic to the XX chromosome.
...

[Mrs Zhang's] "husband's parents bought it when we married. It's in my husband's name so he and [the] parents-in-law are saying that under the new law I am not entitled to half of it," said Mrs Zhang.

"My lawyer thinks I can get maybe 200,000 RMB (£20,000) based on money I paid towards the mortgage. That's ridiculous, because I think the effort I put into the marriage is priceless."
"Priceless"? Methinks you priced your "effort" too high.

Yes! See, this is why it's a problem when women are involved in the political system. They base decisions on emotions instead of logic. Effort put into marriage? What does that even mean? Contract law all the way! We should have never let them vote here.

I remember this covered last year. Good to hear! And even if you don't live in China - because of globalization this is a victory for all men. China has a demographic problem. Even in the USA where males and females are almost 50-50 or 1:1, something like 10% of males will never find a woman. Imagine how bad it would be for males in China if they also had to deal with misandrist laws.

Chinese women can complain all they want. The fact of the matter is they have an excellent insurance policy in the form of GENDER IMBALANCE. Even if an aging wife gets dumped by the curb after her husband gets tired of her nagging and upgrades to a younger model, guess what, scores of single men would still be happy to take her in. If she refuses to settle for "the poor life" aka a middle class husband, that's her problem. If she wants to avoid divorce in the first place, she should select prospective husbands for good character and have worth herself. There are consequences if you marry an asshole or if you act like a leech - what a concept!

Feminists want equality don't they? What part of the alternative is equal: all women are entitled to wealthy husbands, and to half his wealth if they feel vindictive, while men who don't have fancy degrees from foreign universities are destined to being alone and unable to father children.

abcdavid01 wrote:Yes! See, this is why it's a problem when women are involved in the political system. They base decisions on emotions instead of logic. Effort put into marriage? What does that even mean? Contract law all the way! We should have never let them vote here.

It's not only that. Women are naturally self-absorbed (selfish), while men (not necessarily modern males but MEN) are naturally protectors/providers and often don't consider their own interests at all. It is normal for males to see themselves as expendable servants. But who do they serve? As the patriarch men put the well-being of women and children at a higher priority than themselves. This is why men ignore their own needs and many go years without a doctor's check-up, etc. and on average die far younger than women.

How many women do you know that would let their health deteriorate to provide for their children? Those are very rare in this day and age, and I'm not evening asking about their husband. But even more rare are women who actually care about anyone beyond their immediate family. So the opinions of women on political decisions aren't worth crap. True empathy and the forward planning of men is different from the irrational mother instinct.

Feminists like to complain about "male dominated" industries and institutions, using this to demonstrate that men rule the world and hold women back. But if they rule it, then in who's interest? If government (i.e. congress) is full of men and has been since the founding of the USA, does that mean it's a male conspiracy? Does adding women help build a more equal society? All "female empowerment" like women in government, in the military, in construction and engineering fields, has done is f**k over men even more than they had already been getting f***ed. Last time I checked males didn't spend recorded history building a paradise for themselves at the expense of females. Just like if congress was full of Whites, does that mean they were spending their time devising ways to exploit other races? Because that is what many claim.

With their superior technology, it would be very easy for White/European men to enslave the other races and live off their toil, just like it would be easy for males anywhere on Earth to build societies based on females slaving for them. Instead we have societies where men go to work everyday and every few decades go off to die in wars, while their wives sit on their ass. As do "minorities" in Western nations - who receive benefits and artificial-advantages at every step of their life simply for being born not White.

There are a lot of parallels between "Feminism" and "Multiculturalism", both are Communist poisons (of solely Jewish origin) which attack the strong and empower the weak and stupid.

to be a feminist in the west you have to be a woman whos unhappy with life yet who doesnt want to take responsibility for that while belonging to one of the most priveleged groups of humans in history. this leaves you in a predicument where you have to scrape your imagination for reasons how youre actually being oppressed day to day, probably realizing the absurdity of this at first but using it as a clutch to avoid admitting the fact you are irrationally unhappy. then you find various feminist groups full of other individuals doing the exact same thing, then the delusions get exasperated and start to look like they actually pertain to reality. look at anything ever written by a feminist ever. paragraphs among paragraphs of complex sentance structures and fancy words, yet in terms of meaning no different than the ramblings of a psychotic.

anyway on the subject, any law such as this likely to directly result in suffering or disadvantage specifically for women will never get passed here.

Deleted my own post

Full disclosure: my sister is a full on raging liberal feminist. I get exasperated about it, but we get along otherwise. What really pisses me off is male feminists. Benedict Arnolds. Her boyfriend for example, he said he doesn't want children because he suffers depression. Well I did as well! My whole goal in life is to have a male heir to pass on my legacy and my father's. These aren't men. They worship death. The president too - I get sickened watching him. He is not a real man.

Teal Lantern wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-cry.html

"According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety."
Sounds reasonable to me.
...

"Yang Yiyan is one woman who could be forgiven a few tears. The 31-year-old travel agent came out of the Chaoyang office with her now former husband, but they went their separate ways immediately after two years of marriage. Now, she is homeless. "My ex-husband bought the apartment before we were married, so under the new law I'm not entitled to anything," said Mrs Yang."
*Looks about for tiny violin*
She wants half the value of a house. that she didn't buy. for the "service" of living there for two years.
The entitlement mindset must be endemic to the XX chromosome.
...

[Mrs Zhang's] "husband's parents bought it when we married. It's in my husband's name so he and [the] parents-in-law are saying that under the new law I am not entitled to half of it," said Mrs Zhang.

"My lawyer thinks I can get maybe 200,000 RMB (£20,000) based on money I paid towards the mortgage. That's ridiculous, because I think the effort I put into the marriage is priceless."
"Priceless"? Methinks you priced your "effort" too high.

We covered this topic much earlier in another thread when the law was first announced.

.

Teal Lantern wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-cry.html

"According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety."
Sounds reasonable to me.
...

"Yang Yiyan is one woman who could be forgiven a few tears. The 31-year-old travel agent came out of the Chaoyang office with her now former husband, but they went their separate ways immediately after two years of marriage. Now, she is homeless. "My ex-husband bought the apartment before we were married, so under the new law I'm not entitled to anything," said Mrs Yang."
*Looks about for tiny violin*
She wants half the value of a house. that she didn't buy. for the "service" of living there for two years.
The entitlement mindset must be endemic to the XX chromosome.
...

[Mrs Zhang's] "husband's parents bought it when we married. It's in my husband's name so he and [the] parents-in-law are saying that under the new law I am not entitled to half of it," said Mrs Zhang.

"My lawyer thinks I can get maybe 200,000 RMB (£20,000) based on money I paid towards the mortgage. That's ridiculous, because I think the effort I put into the marriage is priceless."
"Priceless"? Methinks you priced your "effort" too high.

Like in the USA, rampant over-valuation. her "contribution" was priceless? LOL ..yea..right. Poontang has a price sweetheart and most likely hers was wildly inflated. At least the law in China is not going to pander to that BS like happens in the USA.


Outwest

OutWest wrote:

Teal Lantern wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-cry.html

"According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety."
Sounds reasonable to me.
...

"Yang Yiyan is one woman who could be forgiven a few tears. The 31-year-old travel agent came out of the Chaoyang office with her now former husband, but they went their separate ways immediately after two years of marriage. Now, she is homeless. "My ex-husband bought the apartment before we were married, so under the new law I'm not entitled to anything," said Mrs Yang."
*Looks about for tiny violin*
She wants half the value of a house. that she didn't buy. for the "service" of living there for two years.
The entitlement mindset must be endemic to the XX chromosome.
...

[Mrs Zhang's] "husband's parents bought it when we married. It's in my husband's name so he and [the] parents-in-law are saying that under the new law I am not entitled to half of it," said Mrs Zhang.

"My lawyer thinks I can get maybe 200,000 RMB (£20,000) based on money I paid towards the mortgage. That's ridiculous, because I think the effort I put into the marriage is priceless."
"Priceless"? Methinks you priced your "effort" too high.

Like in the USA, rampant over-valuation. her "contribution" was priceless? LOL ..yea..right. Poontang has a price sweetheart and most likely hers was wildly inflated. At least the law in China is not going to pander to that BS like happens in the USA.


Outwest

Damn straight.

Dark_Sol wrote:

OutWest wrote:

Teal Lantern wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-cry.html

"According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce. Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety."
Sounds reasonable to me.
...

"Yang Yiyan is one woman who could be forgiven a few tears. The 31-year-old travel agent came out of the Chaoyang office with her now former husband, but they went their separate ways immediately after two years of marriage. Now, she is homeless. "My ex-husband bought the apartment before we were married, so under the new law I'm not entitled to anything," said Mrs Yang."
*Looks about for tiny violin*
She wants half the value of a house. that she didn't buy. for the "service" of living there for two years.
The entitlement mindset must be endemic to the XX chromosome.
...

[Mrs Zhang's] "husband's parents bought it when we married. It's in my husband's name so he and [the] parents-in-law are saying that under the new law I am not entitled to half of it," said Mrs Zhang.

"My lawyer thinks I can get maybe 200,000 RMB (£20,000) based on money I paid towards the mortgage. That's ridiculous, because I think the effort I put into the marriage is priceless."
"Priceless"? Methinks you priced your "effort" too high.

Like in the USA, rampant over-valuation. her "contribution" was priceless? LOL ..yea..right. Poontang has a price sweetheart and most likely hers was wildly inflated. At least the law in China is not going to pander to that BS like happens in the USA.


Outwest

Damn straight.

Wow, I love the sound of this law - China has got it right & it's not sexist because if the woman brought a house, the man gets nothing. This is totally fair and right - but will never happen in the West-Feminist countries!!

Ghost wrote:The Dragon is evidently learning from history and watching the mistakes that the U.S. has made. Now if only the U.S. would learn from its own mistakes.

Yes, I do pay attention to history. Thanks for noticing.