Let’s be practical about this

The Washington Post:

Chinese authorities have been trying for three years to reverse the devastating imbalances of their one-child policy and coax couples to have more children.

Trying and failing. The birthrate remains low and – plot twist! – there are far more men than women.

Eh, what? Why’s that? A low birthrate doesn’t equal more men being…oh wait yes it does. If you can only have one it HAS to be a male, amirite? Nobody nobody NOBODY wants an only child who is a [retch gag puke] female. (Why not? Well, come on, I ask you – they’re so disgusting – they do all that gross pregnancy stuff and then milk-producing stuff. Ew. Men are clean and tidy.)

But now, an economics professor at Fudan University in Shanghai has come up with another — and, unsurprisingly, controversial — solution: allow women to have multiple husbands, and they will have multiple babies.

Oh they will, will they. Is he sure about that? Women who wanted no more than one child will automatically want one per husband if they decide to have several? Dream on, bro.

In China today, home to 1.4 billion people, there are 100 million only-children under the age of 40. But the traditional preference for sons — and the associated practice of aborting girls — means that there are about 34 million more men than women.


So they prevent about 34 million women from existing, and then they want existing women to make up the slack by pushing out more babies for them. That’s a big NOPE, comrade.

His suggestion to solve the oversupply of men is to allow involuntary bachelors — known as “bare branches” in Chinese because they cannot bear fruit for their family tree — to share the relatively scarce supply of women.

Yes but women aren’t a “supply” and women are not things for real people to “share” among themselves. Thanks anyway.

Plus, it would just be more efficient, he continued, suggesting that women would have no trouble meeting the physical needs of multiple husbands.

Sure. They can just lie there. What difference does it make if it’s one or ten?

“It’s common for prostitutes to serve more than 10 clients in a day,” Ng wrote, before taking off on another offensive tangent. “Making meals for three husbands won’t take much more time than for two husbands,” he added.

How about twenty? Fifty? Let’s get really efficient.

Ng is steeling for a fight. He wrote that his next column aimed at redressing gender imbalances would be about legalizing brothels.

Because China’s gender mismatch has caused a fierce competition among men looking for wives, he said, “a man’s right to achieving sexual satisfaction is being severely violated if legal sex work is not allowed.”

Heyyyyyyyy, that’s what Amnesty International says! Also Elliot Rodger, also incels on Twitter shouting at women for existing.

22 Responses to “Let’s be practical about this”