In general, if a whole group of people see what a particular cultural institution holds for them and opt out, it's a condemnation of the institution, not the people. No one's tricking millions of...
In general, if a whole group of people see what a particular cultural institution holds for them and opt out, it's a condemnation of the institution, not the people. No one's tricking millions of women into deciding that marriage or even dating is not for them.
But for the powers that be, it's easier to blame the people who want to opt out than it is to engage in self reflection and change. Change is scary, and may mean giving up power. Better to just condemn women for being clear that marriage doesn't benefit them in the modern era than to try to change it to be more equitable.
All that aside, I really don't see what path China has with regards to their gender disparity. An extra 30+ million men who will never have a family is a hard thing for a society to work with. Where are the social safety nets that will take care of these men if they never have children to look after them? How do you fulfill their need for companionship and community outside of the families they'll never have? Family was the answer to many social challenges, but it's not anymore. How do you deal with that?
That is a classical answer, but it's helpful only in the abstract. Who would China engage in a land war with, that would kill off millions of soldiers? Their geographically contiguous neighbors...
That is a classical answer, but it's helpful only in the abstract. Who would China engage in a land war with, that would kill off millions of soldiers? Their geographically contiguous neighbors where you could just march troops in by the millions and have them die are rare. North Korea is a dependent. Russia is a junior partner, and is having trouble just with Ukraine. Mongolia's total population is 3.5M, or just over a tenth of the number of single men in China. Kazakhstan, Ubekistan, and Kyrgyzstan are similarly lightly populated. Along with them, Pakistan shares a land border with China, but not one conducive to land invasion. Tibet is already controlled, Nepal & Bhutan are small and across the Himalayas. India could be a choice if you really needed to lose a lot of troops, but their land border isn't really one to fight over. Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam are perhaps the most optimal place to lose a lot of troops? The terrain is more conducive to marching in, and also losing troops continuously to guerilla warfare. Losing 30M people is a stretch though. The Vietnam war went on for 14 yeas and military deaths only added up to 250k. That's peanuts. You'd have to have full on WWII scale disasters to lose that many troops. Total military casualties for all nations in WWII were only 21-25 million. China only lost 4 million.
Sorry, I got on a little bit of a kick looking up statistics. But basically: losing them all in a war somewhere is a nonstarter.
Give the "manosphere" another year or so and they'll say that using anything after swords on the warfare tech tree is womanly. We can help that along by highlighting that women have better aim...
Give the "manosphere" another year or so and they'll say that using anything after swords on the warfare tech tree is womanly. We can help that along by highlighting that women have better aim than men on drones or something. It really doesn't matter what, just that you stoke that a bit. They'll bite. Also accepting modern medicine, and not dying of gangrene.... Gay, bro.
Ok if that doesn't work, civil wars are great for killing lots of your own people.
Sure sure, I'm just saying it's more important to get the tech out of it so we can do an old school land war in Asia. Civil war is more a last resort thing. Surely they can find someone to throw...
Sure sure, I'm just saying it's more important to get the tech out of it so we can do an old school land war in Asia.
Civil war is more a last resort thing.
Surely they can find someone to throw bodies against
Uhh Taiwan. It’s a fortress. If they attempt it it’s going to be ugly. If not them then Japan. Otherwise longer term money is on resource acquisition in either Africa or eventually antartica
Who would China engage in a land war with, that would kill off millions of soldiers
Uhh Taiwan. It’s a fortress. If they attempt it it’s going to be ugly.
If not them then Japan.
Otherwise longer term money is on resource acquisition in either Africa or eventually antartica
Remember, the theoretical goal here is to lose 30 million men in a war without otherwise destabilizing the status quo. The problem with all of those options is the transportation. If they're doing...
Remember, the theoretical goal here is to lose 30 million men in a war without otherwise destabilizing the status quo. The problem with all of those options is the transportation. If they're doing well enough to ship the troops there by the literal tens of millions so that they could be killed, the troops won't be dying by the tens of millions. If they're losing, they'll lose the naval capacity to ship them.
Your suggestions are options China might actually take and be successful at, but that would be a failure in this regard.
That's a pretty bold simplification. There's a lot of middle ground in which these things drag out for years and cost millions of lives. Taiwan has turned itself into a pile of artillery and...
If they're doing well enough to ship the troops there by the literal tens of millions so that they could be killed, the troops won't be dying by the tens of millions. If they're losing, they'll lose the naval capacity to ship them.
That's a pretty bold simplification. There's a lot of middle ground in which these things drag out for years and cost millions of lives. Taiwan has turned itself into a pile of artillery and there's plenty of scenarios where China adopts a more Russia meat grinder doctrine to brute force it. There's plenty where they don't and only lose 100k troops or something like that, but it's just not that black and white.
Sure, but 30 million? How do you get there? In attacking Ukraine Russia has seen about 1 million casualties (that is, dead and wounded) in 4 years. I agree that there would be a terrible loss of...
Sure, but 30 million? How do you get there? In attacking Ukraine Russia has seen about 1 million casualties (that is, dead and wounded) in 4 years. I agree that there would be a terrible loss of life, but I don't see how your suggestions actually clear the bar.
You don't, but the societal shock of losing even 100k people, let alone 1million, is tremendous. Russia has 144 million people, and yet 1 million casualties is resonating throughout their country,...
You don't, but the societal shock of losing even 100k people, let alone 1million, is tremendous. Russia has 144 million people, and yet 1 million casualties is resonating throughout their country, and will for the foreseeable future.
Why would a country intentionally want to lose 30 million people? There are a lot of uncaring leaders out there, but I can think of any in all of history that intentionally started a war solely to...
Why would a country intentionally want to lose 30 million people? There are a lot of uncaring leaders out there, but I can think of any in all of history that intentionally started a war solely to reduce their own native population. It sucks that China's own policies and cultural biases led to too many men, but it's not actually a serious problem for them, much less that starting a war solely for them to die in it would ever make sense as a strategy.
Is it? It's all about scale. For one, it's not like people are protons and electrons, it's very normal for people to date someone, break up, date someone else, break up, and so on. Like with rent,...
An extra 30+ million men who will never have a family is a hard thing for a society to work with.
Is it? It's all about scale. For one, it's not like people are protons and electrons, it's very normal for people to date someone, break up, date someone else, break up, and so on. Like with rent, or occupancy, there's a normal float of people who are not a couple - which is OK, it doesn't mean they're all forever alone or anything. Some people never settle down with anyone - they have WFB relationships for sexual relief and manage with other types of relationships.
30 million sounds like a lot, but it's 2% of a population of 1.4 billion.
| Mr Peng has 50,000 followers [on zhizhu] This seemed awfully small to me Zhihu’s average monthly active users (MAU) stood at approximately 83 million in 2024 It is still a lot of people, as is...
| Mr Peng has 50,000 followers [on zhizhu]
This seemed awfully small to me Zhihu’s average monthly active users (MAU) stood at approximately 83 million in 2024
It is still a lot of people, as is the 4 million mentioned on billibilli (~330m users). That's all I can really see because its paywalled, but it is unimpressive to me. Also I question whether China would just willingly send men to die. That seems like completely out of left field. A cursory glance into Chinese elderly care reveals it is a policy priority and are pumping funding into it.
Obviously none of this address the very real problem of misogyny which I certainly don't doubt still occurs in China, in the same vein I don't doubt China is suffering from their own version of the manosphere. I do think they are better suited to handle it than we in the states are.
I find that most everything from The Economist has to be taken with a heavy grain of salt these days.
To be clear, while I was humoring Gazook89's premise, I don't think China is going to engage in a major land war to kill off their extra men. Some combination of directed hatred of the other, a...
To be clear, while I was humoring Gazook89's premise, I don't think China is going to engage in a major land war to kill off their extra men. Some combination of directed hatred of the other, a social safety net sufficient to make them feel that the alternatives would be worse, and regular, isolating entertainment is plenty to keep most people from engaging in the sort of actions that threaten the status quo.
In general, if a whole group of people see what a particular cultural institution holds for them and opt out, it's a condemnation of the institution, not the people. No one's tricking millions of women into deciding that marriage or even dating is not for them.
But for the powers that be, it's easier to blame the people who want to opt out than it is to engage in self reflection and change. Change is scary, and may mean giving up power. Better to just condemn women for being clear that marriage doesn't benefit them in the modern era than to try to change it to be more equitable.
All that aside, I really don't see what path China has with regards to their gender disparity. An extra 30+ million men who will never have a family is a hard thing for a society to work with. Where are the social safety nets that will take care of these men if they never have children to look after them? How do you fulfill their need for companionship and community outside of the families they'll never have? Family was the answer to many social challenges, but it's not anymore. How do you deal with that?
I suspect you throw them into a war somewhere.
That is a classical answer, but it's helpful only in the abstract. Who would China engage in a land war with, that would kill off millions of soldiers? Their geographically contiguous neighbors where you could just march troops in by the millions and have them die are rare. North Korea is a dependent. Russia is a junior partner, and is having trouble just with Ukraine. Mongolia's total population is 3.5M, or just over a tenth of the number of single men in China. Kazakhstan, Ubekistan, and Kyrgyzstan are similarly lightly populated. Along with them, Pakistan shares a land border with China, but not one conducive to land invasion. Tibet is already controlled, Nepal & Bhutan are small and across the Himalayas. India could be a choice if you really needed to lose a lot of troops, but their land border isn't really one to fight over. Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam are perhaps the most optimal place to lose a lot of troops? The terrain is more conducive to marching in, and also losing troops continuously to guerilla warfare. Losing 30M people is a stretch though. The Vietnam war went on for 14 yeas and military deaths only added up to 250k. That's peanuts. You'd have to have full on WWII scale disasters to lose that many troops. Total military casualties for all nations in WWII were only 21-25 million. China only lost 4 million.
Sorry, I got on a little bit of a kick looking up statistics. But basically: losing them all in a war somewhere is a nonstarter.
Give the "manosphere" another year or so and they'll say that using anything after swords on the warfare tech tree is womanly. We can help that along by highlighting that women have better aim than men on drones or something. It really doesn't matter what, just that you stoke that a bit. They'll bite. Also accepting modern medicine, and not dying of gangrene.... Gay, bro.
Ok if that doesn't work, civil wars are great for killing lots of your own people.
Civil wars kill a lot of people, but I daresay the people in charge would like to avoid that option.
Sure sure, I'm just saying it's more important to get the tech out of it so we can do an old school land war in Asia.
Civil war is more a last resort thing.
Surely they can find someone to throw bodies against
Remember, the theoretical goal here is to lose 30 million men in a war without otherwise destabilizing the status quo. The problem with all of those options is the transportation. If they're doing well enough to ship the troops there by the literal tens of millions so that they could be killed, the troops won't be dying by the tens of millions. If they're losing, they'll lose the naval capacity to ship them.
Your suggestions are options China might actually take and be successful at, but that would be a failure in this regard.
That's a pretty bold simplification. There's a lot of middle ground in which these things drag out for years and cost millions of lives. Taiwan has turned itself into a pile of artillery and there's plenty of scenarios where China adopts a more Russia meat grinder doctrine to brute force it. There's plenty where they don't and only lose 100k troops or something like that, but it's just not that black and white.
Sure, but 30 million? How do you get there? In attacking Ukraine Russia has seen about 1 million casualties (that is, dead and wounded) in 4 years. I agree that there would be a terrible loss of life, but I don't see how your suggestions actually clear the bar.
You don't, but the societal shock of losing even 100k people, let alone 1million, is tremendous. Russia has 144 million people, and yet 1 million casualties is resonating throughout their country, and will for the foreseeable future.
Why would a country intentionally want to lose 30 million people? There are a lot of uncaring leaders out there, but I can think of any in all of history that intentionally started a war solely to reduce their own native population. It sucks that China's own policies and cultural biases led to too many men, but it's not actually a serious problem for them, much less that starting a war solely for them to die in it would ever make sense as a strategy.
I don't think anyone has been serious here.
I have no idea. You should ask Gazook89. He's the one who proposed it.
Ship 'em offworld and send 'em to fight the bugs.
Is it? It's all about scale. For one, it's not like people are protons and electrons, it's very normal for people to date someone, break up, date someone else, break up, and so on. Like with rent, or occupancy, there's a normal float of people who are not a couple - which is OK, it doesn't mean they're all forever alone or anything. Some people never settle down with anyone - they have WFB relationships for sexual relief and manage with other types of relationships.
30 million sounds like a lot, but it's 2% of a population of 1.4 billion.
| Mr Peng has 50,000 followers [on zhizhu]
This seemed awfully small to me
Zhihu’s average monthly active users (MAU) stood at approximately 83 million in 2024
It is still a lot of people, as is the 4 million mentioned on billibilli (~330m users). That's all I can really see because its paywalled, but it is unimpressive to me. Also I question whether China would just willingly send men to die. That seems like completely out of left field. A cursory glance into Chinese elderly care reveals it is a policy priority and are pumping funding into it.
Obviously none of this address the very real problem of misogyny which I certainly don't doubt still occurs in China, in the same vein I don't doubt China is suffering from their own version of the manosphere. I do think they are better suited to handle it than we in the states are.
I find that most everything from The Economist has to be taken with a heavy grain of salt these days.
To be clear, while I was humoring Gazook89's premise, I don't think China is going to engage in a major land war to kill off their extra men. Some combination of directed hatred of the other, a social safety net sufficient to make them feel that the alternatives would be worse, and regular, isolating entertainment is plenty to keep most people from engaging in the sort of actions that threaten the status quo.