China: Gender and Patriarchy

Recently, a situational interactive game on Steam called Gold-Digger Game, now renamed Emotional Anti-Fraud Simulator, stirred up great controversy. It seems to show that as the overall social economy declines, the online public-opinion space around gender conflict is gradually returning to men's hands. But public-opinion incidents in which grassroots men and women attack each other keep appearing one after another, and they can never provide a methodology for resolving gender conflict.

Individuals and groups should not be conflated. Whether men or women, differences among individuals within a gender are far greater than differences between genders; idiots are not divided by gender. When "men" and "women" appear below, they both mean "some men" and "some women," not all individuals.

As for the incident itself, compared with some men painstakingly learning "anti-gold-digger knowledge," I am more curious about what kind of upbringing and experience gave these people the illusion that "sincerity can be exchanged for sincerity." Adults looking for partners is inherently an exchange of interests: two parties, according to their respective needs and values, select matching individuals and bind their interests deeply. It is not a sweet campus romance between middle- and high-school students. So when the woman begins to show that she wants to "dig" from you, if this does not fit your values, of course you should eliminate the relationship without hesitation. If you are confused by the other person's sweet words, appearance, figure, or verbal promises and actively accept her "digging," then as a person with full civil capacity, the man should be responsible for his own actions. If someone does not understand such a principle that can be explained clearly in a few sentences, then even after playing the game he will still be "cheated" again after a while. But thinking carefully, can this really count as fraud? Whether it is a huge bride price, asking for gifts, or requiring the man to pay for meals and hotel rooms when going out, all of these are clearly priced equivalent transactions: exchanging for companionship, for the body, or for the freedom of the rest of one's life. If you are unwilling, you can refuse. Where is the fraud? The reason some men feel indignant is probably that, growing up in East Asia's extremely sexually repressive environment, they have never understood how to communicate effectively with the opposite sex. They only know how to give and do not know how to ask, treating giving as proof that they love the other person, believing that the more they give, the more moved the other person will be. But relationships have never worked this way. A stable relationship must involve mutual giving. If you give one part and the other person does not actively return it, you should promptly ask for a return; if asking still receives no response, you should immediately cut it off. This is a very simple and efficient methodology, and in fact all interpersonal relationships work this way. Some men feel that their giving receives no return, but in reality the return must be obtained at every moment of giving through synchronized asking, not through fantasizing that the other person will be "moved" and actively repay you. Once the other person does not satisfy your request, immediately stop giving; only then can you stop losses in time and gain equivalently. I do not deny that there are relationships in which two people run toward each other and do not count gains and losses, but no one can read minds, so one must always keep an extra eye open.

From a more macro perspective, the intensifying gender conflict in online public opinion conceals the more serious and more fundamental class conflicts and institutional oppression. Grassroots men and women accuse each other of privilege, but in reality neither side has any privilege; privilege is in the hands of capitalists and officials. The oppositional incidents historically hyped by media often end up discussing trivial matters, such as whether bride price should be given, how to prevent fraud or gold digging, whether to split the bill or treat, while avoiding the elephant in the room. The source of all these conflicts comes from China's deep-rooted patriarchal culture and patriarchy. "Masculine spirit," "boys protecting girls," and "bride price" are patriarchy's requirements for men: by granting grassroots men a ruling position in the family, it creates a false sense of gain and thereby deprives grassroots men of social and political rights. "Girls doing housework" and "a good wife and wise mother" are patriarchy's restrictions on women: by forcibly controlling women and emphasizing their subordinate position, it stabilizes the family structure and ignores women's subjectivity. Feminists saw this long ago, but they suffer from lacking the ability to resist. What is laughable is that some grassroots men, especially middle-aged grassroots men, are also helping maintain this set of rules, without the slightest awareness that they too are victims. Meanwhile, Chinese feminists, already in a weak position due to lack of political participation, are even less able to effectively resist patriarchal organizations because of speech censorship and powerful violent institutions. Over time, on the internet they have gradually evolved into two camps: one is a moderate camp that emphasizes encouraging women's self-improvement, and the other is a radical camp that attacks men indiscriminately. Both have moved away from the original core intention of opposing patriarchy. The former ignores the structural obstacles women face while growing up, which are far greater than men's. Women do not find it hard to achieve economic independence because they are not hardworking enough, but because they suffer systematic discrimination from family and society. The latter abandons forces that could be united; attacking grassroots men, who are also victims, cannot change any status quo.

The English word for 父权制 is patriarchy; derivative words from the root patri- include patrician and patriotic. Grassroots men and women should first improve their own economic conditions, while also cooperating with each other to strive for broad political participation in life, supervise and promote the formulation and implementation of equality laws, and jointly oppose patriarchy in all gender-related public-opinion incidents. Only then is there hope of achieving gender equality.