Oppose the one child policy? Must be a pussy feminazi!

[antares]

From what looks like an Asian-American dude with absolutely ZERO self esteem whatsoever. He is replying to a post from bloomberg that a journalist wrote about the one child policy.

theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/me-vs-pussythink/

bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/china-takes-one-step-away-from-one-child-policy.html

About him in case anyone cares : theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/another-way-to-face-the-world/

This is the Journalist's Piece:

China’s notorious “one-child†population-control strategy has always been about money and resources. Did China have sufficient food to feed a billion mouths? Could a rapidly expanding population be led into a modern, market-oriented future? Morality, social impacts and the preservation of Chinese culture were seemingly secondary concerns, even in the face of international condemnation of coercive means to enforce the policy.

Now, more than three decades into the “one-child†policy (actually, a set of policies restricting the number of children Chinese may have), the economic calculus that made Chinese population control a logical and even necessary (in the eyes of many Chinese) course of action is faltering. As a result, last week the Chinese government took the first steps toward reforming how its population-control policies are devised, enforced and perceived.

China’s once cheap and plentiful pool of workers is becoming more scarce and expensive; the labor force declined by 3.45 million in 2012 and is expected to decrease by 10 million per year starting in 2025. The shrinking pool of workers will be forced to support an expanding population of senior citizens -- 200 million in 2013 -- that is expected to arrive at 360 million (more than the current U.S. population) in 2030. Meanwhile, over the next two decades, pension liabilities may reach more than $10 trillion.

Partly in response to this coming crunch, the government has begun floating proposals to raise China’s retirement age, much to the chagrin of future retirees. On March 16, Luo Jun, a Beijing-based chief executive officer of an online travel agency, used his Sina Weibo microblogging account to express irritation:

“There’s something that’s always puzzled me. We insist that family planning must continue as a national policy because we have too many people. However, proposals to postpone retirement suggest that there are too few people and a labor shortage. The logic is contradictory.â€

The solution, at least for some Chinese microbloggers, is simple. The deputy editor of the Guangxi Daily News, a news portal in Guangxi province, tweeted via Sina Weibo on March 16: “The key to solving the problems of an aging society is to offer a second-child policy rather than postpone the retirement age.â€

China’s population-control policies have actually undergone adjustments almost from their inception. Today, there are numerous exceptions that allow for second children. The 8 percent of China’s population that belongs to an official minority is exempt from restrictions. Nonetheless, over the last decade, calls for reform -- especially in the form of a widespread second-child policy -- have become more insistent.

The most serious discussions typically happen each spring during the annual “two sessions†of China’s top legislature and legislative advisory body, when Beijing is flooded with local officials with time on their hands (in between rubber-stamping new proposals and leaders). Invariably, these discussions and reform proposals amount to little more than topics for the media to cover.

Still, in many quarters, both public and official sentiment in favor of population control remains strong. Most arguments allude to some version of the statistic contained in this passage from a March 7 editorial in the Communist Party-owned, pro-government Global Times newspaper: “We have avoided more than 400 million people being born in China since the 1980s, relieving the stress on national finances.â€

Popular support for this point of view, and extensions of it, are not hard to find on Chinese microblogs. For example, on March 12, a microblogger in Shanghai, reacting to news that the population-control policies might be relaxed, could not contain his contempt:

“Family Planning Commission officials: watering down population control policies to solve the problems of an aging population is like drinking poison to quench thirst. The problems posed by an aging population will pass, but unleash our fertility and we’ll be ruined.â€

Arguably, a bigger impediment to the reform of China’s population policy is that China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, the agency in charge of enforcing population control, reportedly employs more than 500,000 people. This makes it a particularly potent political force in a country where public-sector employment remains an important means of patronage and economic development. Outright abolition of the agency and its policies would create more problems than it would solve -- at least, from the perspective of Chinese leaders primarily concerned with stability.

A more cautious political approach is needed. A key first step came last week during the 2013 two sessions, when, as part of a restructuring of China’s State Council (roughly equivalent to a U.S. presidential cabinet), China’s new government merged the National Population and Family Planning Commission with the Health Ministry. The restructuring siphoned off responsibility for what Xinhua, the state-owned newswire, reported as “drawing up the population development strategies and population policies†from the National Population and Family Planning Commission to the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s chief economic planning agency. By doing this, China’s new government seems to be explicitly connecting its population policy making to the macroeconomic trends that have begun to worry economists at home and abroad.

The purpose of the merger is at once obvious and murky: Obvious in that it weakens the powerful National Population and Family Planning Commission but murky in that commission’s focus is much altered. It’s a point made by Wang Yukai, a professor with the Chinese Academy of Governance, in an interview with Xinhua: “’After the integration, China still needs to keep to its family planning policy, but what is more important is that China must strive to improve the quality of the population,’ he said, referring to boosting various aspects of people’s lives, including education, health and general well-being.†Though Xinhua did not spell out any specific policies, a public shift toward more qualitative, rather than quantitative, targets is monumental.

Still, it’s taken more than 30 years for the negative economic consequences of China’s population-control policy to become serious enough to inspire reform. Surely, a demographic rebalancing will take as long. But even if the economic benefits of reform are far off, the more important humane effects could be felt sooner, providing Chinese citizens with expanded, though still limited, reproductive freedoms that they haven’t known in decades.

Here is his blog post in response, ROFLMAO

Those who think one child policy is evil, feel free to visit China. Apparently this Adam Minter dude from Bloomberg has never visited China. The highlight is not the good old thought police drill that Chinese government is evil by regulating people’s reproductive rights and make 400 million abortions over the years. This piece has unsurprisingly exactly the same tongue as millions of other reports on China’s family planning policy. Bored as usual, I mechanically scrolled the page to check out the comments. Not that I expect something spectacular, I was really just tired of the same old pussy talks over and over again. Then I found out the comment of this Chinese dude Weimin Ma and the rebuttal of Adam Minter. Oh holy celestial heaven, let’s drift a bit away from the actual context of the comments, am I the only one who finds it extremely similar to an argument between a man and a woman?

Let’s put further analysis on their dialogue:

†Why would the author say that China’s one child policy isâ€notoriousâ€? As a journalist, he should know what is opinion and what is facts. The policy is a country with the worlds 25% population being responsible. Without the policy, China would still have a rapidly expending population which started alomsot half acentury ago and that would be disastrous to China and the entire human being.†–Ma

The dude’s been talking only about facts to challenge the author’s view. Well, all is pretty solid and sensical, but in a way that seems quite impersonal and objective. It is as if a man’s voice: †woman you are wrong, and here are reasons why you are wrong, brap brap brap.†But the woman of course wouldn’t listen to facts.

“Thank you for the advice on what a journalist should know. Now allow me to give you some advice on what someone commenting here should know: Bloomberg View is an opinion site – not a news site – and the stories here openly reflect the opinions of their authors. In this case, my opinion is that the one-child policy is notorious – that is, it has an oft-poor reputation both inside and outside of China. Feel free to disagree.†–Adamina

It’s not a normal woman, it’s a feminist! Cut the crap of those pretentious and specious of “agree to disagree†claptrap. What it all matters is MY OPINION and my opinion only! No facts, no evidence, in fact, screw those facts of yours! I think it has an oft-poor reputation both inside and outside of China, and that’s final! And I am having a period so or like it or not it is what I say it is! Now cut your dick off!

Suffice to say the drill has retarded lots of men’s mind into the stage of pussythink. Thanks to the leftism. But seriously, for all the rage you could possibly accumulate from reading this post, what exactly do you want to do to shake things up? By bringing this Adamina in disguise to China would only change her opinion on this particular issue, whereas there are 99999999 other Adamina out there typing the same excrements everyday. Maybe we should tune the Western society into the correct direction and force insurmountable resistance from the behemoth Left, which is futile, or we should let the world rot to hell with the Goliath together so that the awakened could lead the world again out of the ultimate misery? Alas, perhaps we could find a biological solution to genetically engineer men for the immunity of pussythink. But then again I hate science fictions. If the system is too rotten to be repaired, might as well just let it rot all the way.

Errr, this dude has no reading comprehension whatsoever.

[nelliebelle1197]

Should this not be in Wide World of Snark?

[antares]

Ahhh sorry about that. The guys still a dick though.