婚姻在中国就是房子、车子、票子? | Speaking of China

11 Responses

  1. AG
    AG June 17, 2014 at 2:30 am | | Reply

    It is well known fact (not opinion) that both white and East Asian women are more materialistic than black women who care more for male musculinity over material wealth.

    Do you think poverty can be eliminated by female sexual section if all women refuse to marry poor guys? As we know, evolution is achieved through both natural and sexual selection.

    Just thinking.

    1. Yuan
      Yuan June 17, 2014 at 8:09 am | | Reply

      haha that may also promote homosexuality and eventually eliminate human race Just joke

  2. Rdm
    Rdm June 17, 2014 at 10:37 am | | Reply

    Jocelyn,

    你的中文非常好。我觉得你的文章很有意思。

    I like to chime in my thoughts on your interesting piece of the essay. People have been defining, re-defining what is love. I’m not gonna dig into that. What I believe is, no educated women would ever fall for a guy without a talent. Not the talent that requires him to be next Steve Jobs or next Jack Ma. The talent that at least looks promising to start a family life together.

    John might not be a millionaire, but he has the talent, future that you would have probably thought of struggling together with him. That means you WANT to struggle with him; life ups and downs. But the struggle must be meaningful at least. The struggle must be worth a try to bring you fruits. The struggle that you think will lead two of you to better status and places.

    You’re not gonna want to struggle with some drunken bastards, always asking his wife to bring him food, and curse. No sane woman will want that even if that means “struggle”.

    In that scenario, most women falls for that bitter sweet struggle with their partners. Because of “downs”, “ups” bring you so many sweet memories of how you two struggled together. Because of “ups”, you two enjoy what you sowed.

    For all the struggles between those partners, what I still don’t understand is those White women here in States, marry a Black guy, have 2 or 3 kids taking a public bus, and both are obese, not (China obese standard), but US standard – obese.

    Like George Carlin said, “I can’t even imagine who want to f— that big bloated piece of sh– on earth.” And they still do. So I’m left speechless when I see those scenes.

    Well seems like “Love is everywhere” I guess.

  3. D-Maybe
    D-Maybe June 17, 2014 at 10:39 am | | Reply

    @AG

    If the poor were somehow eliminated, the rich would just compete amongst themselves and create a new class of poor (or poorer) people. There will always be some people on the bottom of the pile given that people are not created equal.

    And I don’t know whether your comment about East Asian and white women being more materialistic is true, but I will say this… Compared to East Asian women, white women tend to have a broader set of criteria for determining their ideal mate. So in addition to the man’s ability to provide financial security, white women will also put emphasis on qualities such as the intellectual and emotional compatibility.

    East Asian women tend to be more practical, and thus materialistic, in their approach to mate selection. Personally, I often find them difficult to impress emotionally and so when I do succeed I feel a great sense of satisfaction.

  4. AG
    AG June 17, 2014 at 9:56 pm | | Reply

    @D-Maybe

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/science/07indu.html?ref=science&pagewanted=all&_r=0

    “Dr. Clark started to wonder whether natural selection had indeed changed the nature of the population in some way and, if so, whether this might be the missing explanation for the Industrial Revolution. …

    A way to test the idea, he realized, was through analysis of ancient wills, which might reveal a connection between wealth and the number of progeny. The wills did that, , but in quite the opposite direction to what he had expected.

    Generation after generation, the rich had more surviving children than the poor, his research showed. That meant there must have been constant downward social mobility as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations. “The modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages,” he concluded.”

    Yes, there are poor in developed nations. But even the poor in developed nation is way wealthier than the poor in 3ird world. So the best way to eliminate poverty is for women to be choosy on materialistic ground. In long run, nations will become wealthier nations comparing to other nations. At end, it is women who shape the human world by choosing what they prefer. The result of sexual selection.

    If you ask white men why want to be most wealthy guys, all come down to get girls.

  5. D-Maybe
    D-Maybe June 18, 2014 at 7:52 am | | Reply

    @AG

    Your NYT article supports my point. You see, poverty is a relative state and as long as a diversity of characteristics exists between people there will always be poor people. The same applies to competition between groups of people, or nations. It’s also worth noting that for most of human history the ability to choose a mate has been held by men, who have pretty much bonked any woman they could get their hands on.

    BTW, here’s an interesting article about the social Darwinism in China to complement the NYT article about England:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

  6. AG
    AG June 18, 2014 at 11:27 am | | Reply

    @D-Maybe

    Here we go. Chinese women should be even more materialistic if China want to be more developed than Western countries.

  7. D-Maybe
    D-Maybe June 19, 2014 at 8:59 am | | Reply

    @AG

    That’s a terrible idea. The materialism of Chinese women has already led to the creation of an army of leftover women in China, despite there being an excess of marriageable men for the women. The leftover women have effectively taken their high-quality genes out of the gene pool.

  8. Marta
    Marta June 19, 2014 at 10:58 pm | | Reply

    读完这篇文章很适合看这个:http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzI2MDU2NzA0.html
    按中国女孩子来说,有钱人不会是坏人!

  9. AG
    AG June 20, 2014 at 5:49 am | | Reply

    @D-Maybe

    Your conclusion is wrong. Think harder.

  10. D-Maybe
    D-Maybe June 20, 2014 at 1:56 pm | | Reply

    @AG

    You’re the one who needs to understand what is happening and stop being so simplistic in your thinking. The leftover women in China are typically highly educated women belonging to the professional class, and their high expectations for the ideal man has ensured that they remain single and thus reproductively unproductive.

    In your recommendation for improving the genetic quality of the Chinese population you have focused only on the contribution by men. If anything, you should be more concerned about the contribution by women because research has shown that intelligence, to the extent that it is a heritable trait, is largely transmitted by women to the next generation. In other words, you’re more likely to be smart if your mother, as opposed to your father, is smart.

Leave a Reply

css.php
%d bloggers like this: