Assorted links

by on July 27, 2013 at 4:26 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1. Kenyan reality TV, which involves niceness and telling people how to run their farms.

2. Chinese food density by NYC neighborhood.

3. How men are spending their money these days, back side first.

4. One Indian court rules that if you have casual sex you are married.  And the price of onions is a political issue there and that is up 112% since 2012.

5. Why do the Chinese hate their own soccer team?

1 prasad July 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm

#4: The article seems to be interpreting the court judgment in a pretty bizarre way, at least going by what the excerpt:

Any couple who choose to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow

Notice that the word ‘marriage’ is not used at all. The context is a couple living together with children for years, then the man after breakup trying to get out of child support because the two weren’t married. The court just seems to be saying if you do it (consummate their sexual cravings) you must stick by any kids that result (consequences that may follow). That seems rather like a sensible ruling than a moronic one.

2 prasad July 27, 2013 at 4:38 pm
3 x July 27, 2013 at 8:59 pm

Sensible? WTF?

If a woman fails to get an abortion for a children the man doesn’t want, she obviously needs to be fully on the hook financially.

Or perhaps she shouldn’t be allowed to have the child at all.

Otherwise, it means every time you fuck a girl, you could be in for a lifetime of child support payments in case the condom fails, you impregnate her and she doesn’t abort as she should.

4 Curt F. July 27, 2013 at 10:29 pm

I agree with your last sentence, except for the word “otherwise”. The rest of your comment in inconsistent with historical and modern cultural norms, just about everywhere in every culture. The man’s decision is whether or not to “fuck a girl”, as you put it.

5 Therapsid July 28, 2013 at 1:51 am

The man’s decision is whether or not to fuck the girl. But the girl’s decision is not just whether to fuck the guy but whether to use contraception, the morning after-pill, abortion, or adoption. And if we dare attempt to limit it to simply the choice whether or not to have sex with the man, we’re automatically a misogynist and slut-shamer? Is that right?

Historians will one day write to bewildered readers how men unilaterally abdicated their reproductive rights in the late 20th and 21st centuries.

6 Curt F. July 28, 2013 at 8:11 am

No, that isn’t right.

7 prasad July 28, 2013 at 1:18 am

1) The case has nothing at all to do with abortion. There are two people cohabiting and raising two children. They split, and the guy’s trying to get out of paying child support.

2) What you so vociferously decry about abortion and child support is in fact law in most countries, including the US. Regardless of views on child support and abortion, my point here is that this ruling is NOT a special and weird oddity to emerge from India, as the linked story seems to suggest. Your views on “men’s rights” etc are noted, but aren’t really what’s interesting about this case, or distinctive about the ruling.

8 Rahul July 28, 2013 at 2:18 am

I was thinking the same. Why is the Global Post so surprised by this ruling? It’s hardly unique to India.

If I had a one-night stand in the US, it led to a baby, patrimony was proven, the court indeed does offer child support, right? (It’d be interesting to know the legal status in other Western nations. Germany? UK? )

Personally, I might agree with @Therapsid and @x regarding the unfairness of this, but that’s a different matter.

9 shrikanthk July 28, 2013 at 3:26 am

If I had a one-night stand in the US, it led to a baby, patrimony was proven, the court indeed does offer child support, right?

Proving patrimony has significant transaction costs. It is a pain one can do without.
I prefer the old conservative set-up. If you’ve a kid without getting married, it is the woman’s headache (unless it was a rape). People ought to be responsible for their actions. Moreover paying for “child support” isn’t quite the same as living with the girl and kid and raising a family.

The main reason marriage as an institution exists is to protect women (who are at an unfair disadvantage because of biological realities and the asymmetrical nature of heterosexual relationships). If you choose not to get married, you choose the risk that it entails.

10 prasad July 28, 2013 at 7:30 am

I agree Rahul. I do feel sympathy for men’s rights in many divorce scenarios, which end up being effectively less custody but more payment. The abortion case is – for me – iffier, but regardless to me this whole sideline is a complete red herring here. It has nothing to do with what allegedly makes this court’s ruling interesting. They’re just saying you have to support your children regardless of marriage registration.

Shrikanthk – re transaction costs, I’d be very surprised if DNA tests turned out to be more expensive than marriage ceremonies 🙂

11 shrikanthk July 28, 2013 at 8:42 am

prasad : regarding your line :

“They’re just saying you have to support your children regardless of marriage registration”

To my mind that’s an anti-marriage ruling. It incents reckless sexual behavior among women as well as men and promotes a social view that “paying for child support” is morally equivalent to “raising a family under one roof”. The message that is being conveyed here is “we really don’t need two parent families anymore. If you’re a male you’d rather have one night stands with the women you fancy with no obligation to marry any of them. If one of your partners does have a baby, all you have to do is cough up the child support amount”.

This is the kind of thoughtless legislation that hurts our civilization in the long run. People ought to be responsible for their actions. If a woman chooses to have a baby outside wedlock she ought to face the consequences of her decision.

12 prasad July 28, 2013 at 9:30 am

Shrikanth – I can summarize all the stuff you said as “the institution of bastardy is efficient and has positive social consequences.”

That’s not a new or surprising view. Most people who reject this thought also have reasons that are neither new nor surprising. We think your approach is unfair to any children who do get born, and creates pretty awful and regressive social stigmas, and worse specifically against women rather than gender neutrally. I don’t think we’re going to settle this hoary old argument today!

13 shrikanthk July 28, 2013 at 9:44 am

Prasad : No. I am not calling for any social stigmas.
All I am saying is – you can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Over here the change in law essentially incents a woman to raise a kid with her ex boyfriend’s money (without the boyfriend being around to take care of the kid). It also incents men to desist from marriage and instead raise kids from a distance through pay-checks.

There is no free lunch eventually. The ultimate upshot of this in a century or two will be more precipitous declines in birth rates (as couples staying apart don’t find it economical to have many kids because the marriage premium doesn’t exist if you stay separate) leading to an even greater burden on the working population to support the aged.

14 prasad July 28, 2013 at 10:14 am

Shrikanth – bastardy*is* the notion that certain children are “legitimate” and hence qualify for support, while others are “illegitimate” and don’t. The fact that you and I immediately associate that idea with a stigma is precisely to my point – it’s very hard to maintain such a distinction (even ignoring the injustice to so-called ‘illegitimate’ children) without it organically developing notions of stigma and inferiority around those affected. I don’t think that price (which is a very “traditional” way of doing things) is worth paying, for the sake of the positive consequences you mention. But again I doubt we’re going to agree.

15 Jan July 28, 2013 at 1:18 pm

I don’t understand how this ruling implies that paying child support is morally equivalent to raising a family under one roof. Obviously raising a family under one roof is preferred, but the state can’t force someone to act like a father or marry a woman if he doesn’t want to–it would not turn out well. It can make the baby daddy pay, however. And that is better than nothing. I don’t think it encourages reckless behavior any more than traffic fines encourage reckless driving (“They can just pay the ticket and get away with endangering peoples’ lives.”).

16 Marie July 28, 2013 at 8:49 pm

Spoken like a man for whom it will never be an issue. . .. .

17 Ed July 28, 2013 at 1:41 am

The Chinese restaurant map is a bad map.

The data point is percentage of Chinese restaurants (actually “restaurants classified by the Department of Health as Chinese”) of all the restaurants in a neighborhood. So of course the neighborhoods that stand out are some ghetto areas that only have a couple of restaurants, one of which may be Chinese. From the commentary, it appears the blogger doesn’t understand this.

There is another map showing where the Chinese in New York City live, which is much more interesting and a much better guide as to where the Chinese restaurants are.

18 Brandon Berg July 28, 2013 at 8:58 am

Wouldn’t fat just sag without muscle or connective tissue to support it?

19 Nikki July 28, 2013 at 10:06 am

#3 — a very American thing. I recently talked with a Boston plastic surgeon at a mammoplasty conference, and he was shocked by the lack of interest in bigger butts across the ocean. Women pump fat into breasts, but that complicates cancer detection. On the other hand, as he put it, “nobody dies from butt cancer.”

20 Peldrigal July 28, 2013 at 11:09 am

Way to go, India, keep keeping the evil chain retailers at bay.

21 Jacob A. Geller July 28, 2013 at 3:32 pm

#4. Tomatoes and bananas, too.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: