Boy, someone better tell Kos and Instapundit about this…they should be out there playing online games, dammit!

August 27, 2005 @ 12:24 am | Comment

Completely agree with this report. Mao only said women held half the sky up because he needed them to work like men, irregardless of physical strength or such troubles as pregnancy.

August 27, 2005 @ 3:49 am | Comment

This stereotype definitely still exists, and is plainly wrong to anyone who spent any time in a Chinese office. To my eyes, it was the men who had the extra time, mostly spent smoking or dining.

While it is true that there is a traditional bias against women in Chinese culture, I often wonder how much of the current situation can be blamed on this. It seems to me that gender bias may be an inevitable consequence of a lower level of economic development. Not that this makes it right, in any way. zb

August 27, 2005 @ 5:24 am | Comment

Rather than slam Hu for dissing women, one could read his stereotype-driven comments as being pretty damning to both of the sexes.

[observation]

That said, Chinese women do seem more openly introspective than Chinese men, and that lends itself well to the single-person diaries that constitute most of the blogosphere. Most Chinese men, on the other hand, seem quicker to communicate their views in collaborative or community fora like BBSes and seem to shy away from blogs.

[/observation]

August 27, 2005 @ 5:40 am | Comment

Zenbowl:
With such an emotional diatrabe as what you’ve just spewed forth, I can only assume you’re a woman.

August 27, 2005 @ 5:40 am | Comment

Keir-

Heh. Women may hold up half the sky, but I owe up to 100% of the dry, nerdy analysis.

zb

August 27, 2005 @ 5:57 am | Comment

HI

August 27, 2005 @ 8:00 am | Comment

My impression is that women in China are much more “liberated” than women in other Asian nations. They are much too aggressive from all that stuff about women holding up half the sky. It may be true there is still this glass ceiling in the corporate world, but so does the rest of the world. Here in the United States, I have hardly seen a women in top executive positions in the corporate world, and even salaries between the sexes is still very much different, with women getting the lower end of the scale. So this sort of stuff against women is everywhere, and even the good’ol USA is the same. But as for women’s liberation in terms of culture and sexuality, Chinese women in China are too “liberated”, compared to their other Asian counterparts in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. It seems that Mao ZeDong has gone to other extreme of LIBERATING women. The fear I have for China is the break-down of family values, not so much the victimizaton of women.

August 27, 2005 @ 8:10 am | Comment

Also from the interview:

“The U.S. has many famous bloggers, and they have a big influence”

Ha!

“These people are not real bloggers.”

Yes, just we rabble-rousers here.

Also, Richard the evangelist, you’re my hero.

August 27, 2005 @ 8:14 am | Comment

Dangit, that was me as “Government” above. Forgot to change my name from my hil-a-ri-ous comment on the Uighur thread.

August 27, 2005 @ 8:20 am | Comment

Highlighting this part of the article is weak and doesn’t say anything other than one mans opinion. And it doesn’t say anything about his political agendas either. If you take out the word “emotional” you wouldn’t have bothered to post it.

I would have advised the readers to read the whole article or post it, as it is more interesting than pointing out this…. Well pointless quote.

Martyn said: “I’m sorry? Boys and men don’t have time to write very much? Busy doing men’s stuff I suppose. “Girls are a lot more emotional”? I fear that Mr. Hu has done Chinese men a great disservice. After all, he isn’t an elderly farmer from the inner provinces whose thinking is still firmly rooted in the old world. He’s supposed to be a savvy, 27-year old Internet entrepreneur. Alas, Mao’s previous exultations that “Women hold up half the sky” seem to ring rather hollow at this point.”

Ok……ummm… What China are you living in? Are you living in China Martyn?

Cause your comments “disservice to Chinese men” or thinking a 27 year old entrepreneur has a modern outlook when it comes to gender equality is pathetic.

I’M SORRY, BUT THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS PATHEDIC… TRY AGAIN!

August 27, 2005 @ 8:41 am | Comment

AC…….. Hello…..AC…….

You sir or Madame are an idiot.

Let’s just leave at that…….. OK?

August 27, 2005 @ 8:49 am | Comment

Well, that’s certainly a compelling argument.

August 27, 2005 @ 11:24 am | Comment

Huh?

Boy, I don’t know whether I should zap comments when I can’t even figure out what they are trying to say…

Votes, anyone?

August 27, 2005 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

>

Calling me an idiot is not improving your argument. If you disagree, by all means tell me why?

I certainly do believe women’s lib in China has gone to the extreme. There’s been a lot of loss in morals and good conduct for women and men. Personally, I think we need some tightening up in the morality department.

August 27, 2005 @ 3:27 pm | Comment

And the men have nothing to do with this, AC?

I believe that men and women should be partners, with equal responsiblities in upholding family life and morals. Blaming women for wanting some of the same priviledges that men have enjoyed for centuries strikes me as patently self-serving.

August 27, 2005 @ 3:42 pm | Comment

To Other Lisa,

Well, Lisa, so your logic is that since men are corrupt, then women should also enjoy the privilege of corruption. I’m glad you are not running the world. Fact is, both men and women in China today needs more morals. But encouraging Chinese women to lose their morals and good conduct because some men are behaving badly is just mimicking what’s happened in Europe and America. I don’t think that’s the way to go. That’s just part of the bloody gender war.

August 27, 2005 @ 4:22 pm | Comment

AC, I am not making the argument that women should be allowed to be corrupt because men are. You however are holding women responsible for increased corruption in society – that is the essence of your argument if you break it down – “women’s rights have gone too far and now society is corrupt.” That’s pretty much blaming women and letting men off the hook.

And if you are saying that Western Europe and the United States are more corrupt than China because of the higher status of women…I’d like to know just where you’re living. I would go so far as to say that those countries where women have more political control are in general less corrupt than those countries in which they do not. Let’s take, oh, Iceland versus Saudi Arabia, for example!

You basically sound like you object to women having control over their own careers, lives and sexuality (I add the last because generally this is what phrases like “moral conduct” typically really mean).

I mentioned this in an earlier thread, and I’ll restate it here: the most successful societies on Earth are those in which women participate as more or less equal partners, where women’s rights are respected, where women are educated and have economic resources and are allowed to control the basic circumstances of their own lives.

August 27, 2005 @ 6:25 pm | Comment

AC,

According to you “Women Empowerment = Moral Corruption = Lose Family Value”. What a idea? Unfortunately, this type of immoral opinion still exists.

August 27, 2005 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

To Other Lisa,

I can see that you are very emotional in regard to this issue, quite typical of feminist libs on the left.

First, I am not holding women’s liberation responsible for corruption of society. I am not against women being treated fairly and equally. However, I think what is wrong is the idea that women should become these ultra-aggressive robots who work and neglect their children and family. That is not to say that men are to neglect their wives and children, either. WE need to ask for equality for men and women without compromising on basic family and personal values, such as sex, child-rearing, and good moral conduct.

AND you know what? I am born in the United States of America, went to a liberal university in California, so don’t talk as if you are this saint from the West preaching to little children. I can just smell the condescension.

As for this alleged correlation you pointed out between less corruption and better standards of women in societies, I think it’s quite simplistic and amateurish. And besides, I’m not talking about corruption in politics. I’m talking about the break-down in family and family values, which is really destroying societies. And you cannot tell me, that in Europe and America, there aren’t tons of broken homes and drug problems. I think your liberal approach is detrimental. It’s detrimental to the 3rd world countries, especially. The 1st world nations had the chance to build a strong society that had strong family values before the debut of liberal extremist feminism and that’s why they became successful, and not the other way around. Get it? Learn your history. Ultra-feminism emerged in the 1960s with all its attendant problems. BUT by that time, the United States was already a powerful nation. So the reason America is strong does not imply that ultra-feminism had anything to do with the this because the ideology came after the FACT. OK?

Now go get some education before preaching to me…

August 27, 2005 @ 7:21 pm | Comment

I am beginning to think that the left in America is just as bad as the right. Both wings are condescending in their own peculiar ways towards foreign cultures and people. The right likes to think their ways (culture, government, etc. etc), including religion, is the best and will talk accordingly to foreigners like little ignorant children. The left does the same, except they have no God, and still talk to foreigners like little ignorant children. Be forewarned, pride goes before destruction…

August 27, 2005 @ 7:37 pm | Comment

Boy, talk about emotional, AC. I suggest you read my post, then read yours, and look at who is doing the shouting (which is how I read capital letters). And I really can’t be held responsible for misinterpreting your argument when you make it so poorly.

Basically, no matter how much you say that you support equal rights for women, you are by your statements – eg, “I think what is wrong is the idea that women should become these ultra-aggressive robots who work and neglect their children and family” – attempting to define what a “good” woman is and placing restrictions on that definition. You are still placing the onus on women.

Listen, I don’t think anyone should neglect their kids and their families, that is, if they choose to have them. I actually quite dislike that success for women is being defined on men’s terms – your “ultra-aggressive, working robots.” That’s not how I define success, personally. I’d rather see work environments that take into account the needs of families and working parents. And in fact that’s something that having more women in the work force has done in some cases – forced companies to think of ways in which they might support the parents working for them.

In terms of my condescension – well, first, I haven’t once mentioned China in my comments, so I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t assume that I’m “bashing” here. As for Saudi Arabia, I’ll bash all I want, thank you. There are some things that transcend the virtues of cultural relativism, and Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women is one of them.

Promoting women’s rights helps societies on a lot of levels, and not just the poliltical. In Bangladesh, the use of “micro-loans” – like several hundred dollars – given to poor women to start family businesses has raised a lot of families out of poverty and into decent, if still poor, lives. Having that kind of economic control in their lives has also encouraged these women to have fewer children – something else which helps raise families out of poverty.

AC, all feminism means is that women have the same ability to choose their destinies and participate in society as men have. If they choose to stay at home and raise their kids, that’s a legitimate choice too (assuming they are in the economic position to do so). If you find that threatening, well, too bad.

August 27, 2005 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

Lisa, Lisa Lisa,

Equal treatment for women is right. And I agree.

But why do you hate men so much?
Why do you think that the only way a woman can get even with a man is to emulate his ways?

Because the man is corrupt and sexually loose, so now it’s ok for a woman to do the same? I’d think the correct way would be to correct the man’s behavior and not encourage the woman to do the same. That’s what’s wrong with 60s fem movement, and it’s already cost your beloved Western civilization a whole of lot, in terms of family break-downs, drug use, disease, etc. etc.

August 27, 2005 @ 7:54 pm | Comment

Most women would love to stay at home with their children when they are young, but they don’t want to stay home for their whole life, or just work on some kind of minimum-wage type of jobs after the kids are older enough. They want the type of jobs that are intellectually stimulating and financially rewarding, just like men do. But that the competence of the job markets creates the situation – once you are out of the professional work force for a few years, it is very hard for you to go back again. Beside, most women need to work simply just to pay the bill. So they have to drop the kids at daycare with no choice. The situation created is not because the society is too pro women-right, but because not pro women-right enough.

August 27, 2005 @ 8:02 pm | Comment

I’m surprised I didn’t receive more abuse for this post. If one is from China, I can see that such appauling gender stereotyping would be quite embarrassing.

To be honest though, I did consider that Kos Hu was a victim of perhaps slightly unflattering translation. There’s a few Chinese terms I can think of which could be ’emotional’ which one can say in Chinese and it would be ok.

As to the fact that ‘only one man said it’. Ah yes, partisan peoples of the world are cetainly wont to tar everyone with the same brush unfortunately. The Chinese media do this all the time.

August 27, 2005 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

AC, you are so not getting what I’m saying that I’m not sure if it’s worth trying to get through to you yet again. But because I am a really stubborn person who feels like if only I can present my argument clearly and calmly enough, surely others will understand where I’m coming from (oh foolish me), I’m going to give it one more shot.

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, surely you would have noticed the part where I said, “I actually quite dislike that success for women is being defined on men’s terms – your “ultra-aggressive, working robots.” That’s not how I define success, personally.”

But I guess that just went right on by you.

The point I am making is that you don’t have the right to define what a “good” woman is, other than in the very personal sense of who you want to share your life with, and also according to universal values of proper human conduct – e.g., I think we can all agree that people who abuse others pretty much suck, regardless of whether they are men or women.

Otherwise, buddy, it’s not up to you. If you think that a woman by insisting on her own perogative to define herself as she wants to without your approval means that she hates men…well, that’s just pretty sad.

August 28, 2005 @ 1:10 am | Comment

And by the way, LW is exactly right.

August 28, 2005 @ 1:11 am | Comment

When I read phrases like “good moral conduct” I allways become a little nervous. Reminds me of times when few people in society had the power to define what good morals are. I say better a bit to much “immorality” than again times when the preachers and other people with “high morals” have the power to tell you how to live, how to dress and how to have sex.

August 28, 2005 @ 6:33 am | Comment

Well put Lisa, very well said indeed.

August 28, 2005 @ 10:59 am | Comment

Martyn said: “As to the fact that ‘only one man said it’. Ah yes, partisan peoples of the world are cetainly wont to tar everyone with the same brush unfortunately. The Chinese media do this all the time.”

Martyn, please don’t equate yourself with the Chinese media. The point I tried to make was the picture was bigger than what you were seeing or telling us. I am glad that you gave a link to the article.

Other Lisa said: “Boy, I don’t know whether I should zap comments when I can’t even figure out what they are trying to say…”

Sorry to confuse you about both my posts. I should have added more from Martyn’s post to my post to make it more fluid.

And AC……… I should change the word “idiot” to…… Narrow minded….no wait…. subjective opinion… no wait….. Could someone help me out? My edu-ma-cation an’t no gooded.

I’m joking of course……… I’ll keep the word “idiot”.

August 28, 2005 @ 1:15 pm | Comment

No problem. I’m sleep-deprived…

August 28, 2005 @ 3:36 pm | Comment

Dear fellow ideologues,

I understand and sympathize and support your cause for equality between the sexes. I am in full agreement that women should be treated no less than a man. Let me make that clear before I get labelled with this and that….whatever labels you can conjure up…

But here is where I believe our disagreement lies: yes, there is what is considered “good” and “bad” behavior for both men and women. Let’s not try to diminish this, and say well, morality is relative. No, it’s not. And this Western relativism is what has and is still destroying families and children, not only in the West but also in other parts of the world.
Just witness the glaring stats in regard to drug use amongst teens in the United States, divorce, and kids without parents….it’s devastating. Much of it all came when people lose their moral absolutism in regard to the family.

August 28, 2005 @ 4:01 pm | Comment

AC, no one is saying that there aren’t standards by which peoples’ behavior can and should be judged (though like Shulan, I do believe some kinds of “moral” judgments with regards to sexual behavior can be a slippery slope). Hurting other people is wrong. Neglecting one’s children is wrong. Breaking a commitment that you make to another person and betraying a trust, these things are wrong.

But this is quite a turnaround from what you said previously. And I can only respond to the argument that is being made, not the one that you might have intended but didn’t express.

And by the way, teenage drug use is down in the United States, compared to twenty years ago.

August 28, 2005 @ 4:45 pm | Comment

To Other Lisa,

I am glad that we agree that there is morality in relationships. But in China today, this rampant individualism is destroying the very fabric of many relationships. And it’s not good. Equality is good, but it must be in the confines of a well-defined moral framework. That’s all I’m saying.

As for teenage drug use in the United States, I don’t think it’s down. I’ve read a report that actually it’s up in many high schools. But I could be wrong. Still, even if it’s down a bit, so what? I’ll bet next year, teen drug use will be up again.

August 28, 2005 @ 4:56 pm | Comment

>>But in China today, this rampant individualism is destroying the very fabric of many relationships.

What has destroyed “morality” in China has nothing to do with “individualism.” On the contrary, it was the rampant and insane “collectivism” of moral absolutists and ideologues of the Cultural Revolution. I’m sure AC can relate to them. Let’s all work on being more moral! (well, as defined by AC).

You can’t force people to be “moral.” You can try, however, in a police state, but it still doesn’t work.

BTW, women are more emotional than men. That is a noncontroversial statement, however non-PC it may be. But that has nothing to do with why there are more women bloggers in China, etc.

August 28, 2005 @ 6:37 pm | Comment

I’m going to briefly drop in a word of support for AC. Without commenting on this/her argument, I will say that it can be pretty confusing for people outside a western culture to understand the heavily politicised nature of discourse on gender related issues. There is a whole raft of things you just are not permitted to say, without being subject to abuse. Witness the insults leveled at AC. My view is that this just displays a level of insecurity, in which you cannot permit others to say things at variance with the official line. Seems that some people who are ready and willing to criticise this kind of thing in China are completely one-eyed when it comes to recognising it in their own culture.

Take this one sentence as an example: if someone (anyone) should dare to say something like this: “I think a woman’s proper place is in the home, caring for the family, while the man’s proper place is in the workforce, earning money to support his family.” that person would be subject to a series of emotionally based personal insults. It would get the same kind of reaction as a comment like “kill all blacks”. While the latter kind of statement would certainly deserve a harsh reaction, the former does not. It can be responded to, and argued against, by all means … but should an author be abused for it? Of course not.

AC – you’ve learned an important lesson. In fact, it’s NOT the case that the left is just as bad as the right when it comes to this kind of matter … they are far far worse. They have a whole list of things you can and cannot say. One of the main reasons why people on the right come out and say some pretty outrageous things is because they are reacting against a political/cultural climate in which you are just NOT PERMITTED to say a lot of things. So they say “well, stuff you, I can say THIS and THAT, and how about THIS too? How do you like that?”

August 28, 2005 @ 8:26 pm | Comment

The left is more likely to call someone a “racist.” The right is more likely to call someone a “traitor.” To say that the left is worse in this respect is false: the right just has a different set (of equally ridiculous) issues that will subject you to a barrage of “emotionally based personal insults.” Also, more recently the right has taken a page out of the PC handbook. Anyone who is opposed to creating a theocracy is “anti-religious” and is persecuting the poor intelligently-designed Christians. The right has its own identity/victim politics that is every bit as pathetic as the left’s. I guess they are the silent persecuted majority.

August 28, 2005 @ 9:29 pm | Comment

You know, FS9, I think if someone said, “I think that black people really aren’t capable of high-level thinking and are better off as servants, it’s better for them and for society as a whole,” well, a lot of people might find that an objectionable statement.

While for some reason it still seems to be okay for people to make statements about what a woman’s place is and how her role should be defined.

Look, I understand that there are cultural issues at work here. But I know a number of women in China who are strugging single parents; they have to hold down a job to survive; they don’t have the option of staying home and managing the household. I’m thinking of one friend of mine in particular. Her relationship was abusive, she had to get out of it. She also happens to be brilliant, an academic and an intellectual. Where’s the support for her and her dreams?

August 28, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment

There is a whole raft of things you just are not permitted to say, without being subject to abuse. Witness the insults leveled at AC.

I completely reject FSN9’s argument about things you are allowed and not allowed to say. How did we even get into this discussion? One commenter named Incognito “insulted” AC, but looking at FSN9’s comment, you’d think a whole gang of crazed liberals were beating up on AC. Not true. The discussion here has been polite, and AC has made some provocative and self-contradictory remarks that unsurprisingly got a rise from those he intended to incite. The attempt to make it seem like this is a liberal sickness, to attack people for expressing their true feelings, is specious – there’s plenty of blame on both sides when it comes to this, and the left is as guilty as the right. To discuss who is worse in terms of untouchable topins – liberals or conservatives – is a futile discussion, with no possibility of resolution. But just to establish closure on this issue, let me give the final, unchallengable answer: the right is far, far worse than the left in this area.

August 29, 2005 @ 12:24 am | Comment

What made me feel uneasy about AC’s statements is the combination of the mentioning of equality rights for women and the decay in morals. Perhaps AC didn’t mean it this way but for me it sounds as if womens liberation is the cause for moral decay.Conservatives allways accuse the left that their program of enlightenmet has disturbing effects on a society. I doubt that there is a significant decay in morals. I doubt that in times with “high morals everything was better. From my point of view the only thing that has changed is that things that existed before now become more public. I doubt that families realy were so much happier in former times. There only existed strickt laws that gave the man the power in the family, so to the outside it looked as if everything was allright while the alienation in family could allready have reached a level that today would be a cause for divorce.

Look at societies with “high morals” like islamic societies. In Iran they have a big problem with heroin and I doubt that there exists no prostitution.
On the other side here in godless Germany, alltough you read terrible things about the sexual abuse of children in the media, the criminal statistics say that in the last 50 years there was a significant decline of such crimes. Now tell me more about the good morals in religious societies.

In a liberal society problems are dicussed openly and that gives you the chance to solve them. In societies with a lot of “morals” the problems are tabu because they do not exist in these societies by definition.

August 29, 2005 @ 2:52 am | Comment

Richard, I consider that you have just proven my point conclusively. The very fact that you can’t see it, not to mention “hmmms”‘s reponse … and Lisa’s.

Case proven, slam dunk. Thanks very much!

August 29, 2005 @ 7:51 am | Comment

>not to mention “hmmms”‘s reponse

Not sure what you are talking about. I didn’t “insult” anyone, and I said that the right and left both do the same thing.

August 29, 2005 @ 9:18 am | Comment

FSN9, all I’ll say on this one is,
“whatever. ” I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

August 29, 2005 @ 9:24 am | Comment

What has destroyed “morality” in China has nothing to do with “individualism.” On the contrary, it was the rampant and insane “collectivism” of moral absolutists and ideologues of the Cultural Revolution. I’m sure AC can relate to them. Let’s all work on being more moral! (well, as defined by AC).—-hmmmm< HI hmmmm, I was just talking to a Chinese friend about the Cultural Revolution. It has its positives and negatives. But one of its negatives was its collective trumpeting of INDIVIDUALISM: In other words, there is no moral confines that binds the INDIVIDUAL to some strict moral order, like Confucianism or Christianity has. So what do you have left? An amoral being free to do whatever he or she likes short of rebelling against the government. Now fuse this with Western ideas of INDIVIDUALISM, which I think to much extent is even more radical, and what do you have in China today? A Chinese version of Euro-American hedonists, who can care less about god(s) and country.

August 29, 2005 @ 4:11 pm | Comment

AC:
Could you be a little more specific about the positives of the CR. I don’t see any but perhaps I’m a little ignorant because there is no srtict moral confine, that binds me to “moral order”; like there is in christianity where there is the clear line between the believers and non-believers who inevitably are doomed by the lord himself to burn in hell. That realy is a strict confine. Here the good, there the bad. But I am not so sure if this confine realy is the best for morals and harmony in a society.
By the way a similar confine existed during the CR. The consequences are well known.

August 30, 2005 @ 2:20 am | Comment

AC:

Your last comment just destroyed your credibility. You obviously know next to nothing about the CR. This is similar to the CCP party line on the CR: “The CR demonstrates why democracy is so dangerous!” As if the CR where somehow an experiment in liberal democracy.

>A Chinese version of Euro-American hedonists, who can care less about god(s) and country.

1. I doubt you could find any people on Earth who are more nationalist than Chinese (well, Koreans maybe). This is even more true today than 30 years ago. How does that jibe with your claim that Chinese today don’t care about “country?”

2. American society is highly religious — and this influences every aspect of American culture. You are claiming that these people don’t care about “god(s)?” American society is much more conservative than you seem to realize. We’ll chalk that up to ignorance.

I know the party line is that all of China’s problems, past and present, are the fault of the evil West, but I find your analysis sorely lacking.

August 30, 2005 @ 12:51 pm | Comment

Here’s my response to the various comments on my post,

PATRIOTIC CHINESE

Yes, in accordance to Hmmmm’s observations, certainly many Chinese love their country. That is true indeed, even with the new-generation of Chinese party-animals. So the old saying goes like this, I believe, scratch a Chinese yuppy, and you’ll find a die-hard nationalist. That’s the encouraging news.

PATRIOTIC AMERICANS

And I agree that there is still a good deal of so-called patriotic conservative Americans. That’s why we have George Bush in power. But still, the rampant drug use and divorce rates aren’t a comfort.

WHY SO DEFENSIVE?

Now let me interject one observation on this site: It seems like you guys have a problem whenever I say something about the negatives in the West. Why are you so defensive? This whole message board has been devoted to putting down China, and I don’t see anyone here getting so defensive about it.

THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

Oh yes, the Cultural Revolution had some good stuff in it. But yes, I agree on the whole it’s not something China needs again. The problem is that it trumpets INDIVIDUALISM to the highest most extreme degree, freeing the individual from ALL traditional moral values and boundaries. Yes, certainly, the Cultural Revolution demanded people pay allegiance to the Maoist (not Communist per say) ideology, and in that sense even the Cultural Revolution had its own form of morality. BUT, this form of morality which Mao championed was the worship of the INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING at the expense of a God, or traditional moral boundaries. That’s why today in China, you have a whole generation of godless youths growing up, and seeking only to satisfy the desires of oneself.

August 30, 2005 @ 4:34 pm | Comment

>PATRIOTIC CHINESE

This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone claim that extreme nationalism is a good thing.

>PATRIOTIC AMERICANS

You seem to imply that “convservative, patriotic Americans” don’t get divorced or take drugs. I hate to tell you, but go poll the white trash in the country and see who they overwhelmingly voted for. Here’s a hint: it wasn’t Kerry. Issues like divorce and drug use don’t divide along party lines.

>WHY SO DEFENSIVE?

So when someone says something inaccurate or untrue, if you correct them, you are being “defensive?” I don’t think so. I think most people here are probably more critical of the West than most people are in China. All the more so, because their criticism of their own society and culture is not based on sheer ignorance and propaganda, as is generally the case when you hear criticism of the West in China.

>THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

That is quite a theory you’ve got there. Mao trumpted the INDIVIDUAL?? I have never heard anything so absurd. Mao trumpted permanent revolution in which every individual was subordinated to the PARTY (and himself, of course). Yeah, remember all of those individuals expressing themselves during the CR ??? — not living in fear of saying or doing anything that the Red Guards might see as “counter-revolutionary.” The CR was driven by fear and conformity — the opposite of “individuality.”

Your basic premise is flawed: Christianity (for one) is a religion based on INDIVIDUALITY. Which in part explains the development of liberal democracy in the West. You seem to think individuality is the antithesis of religion. In any case, if you are looking for someone to blame for all of the “godless Chinese” (as you call them), try the CCP. They are the ones who outlawed religion and destroyed tradtional Chinese culture.

August 30, 2005 @ 5:57 pm | Comment

To Hmmmm,

CHINESE PATRIOTISM IS BAD?

What? For a Chinese to love her/his country is extreme nationalism? You’re more racist than I thought.

AMERICAN PATRIOTISM=DRUG ADDICTION?

Second, I am born in the United States and I grew up here. People who use drugs do tend to be less patriotic. Are you trying to defend drug-addicts? Are you a drug addict yourself?

HMMM’s FACTS/POINT OF VIEW IS THE TRUTH?

Third, for an open-minded person as yourself, I am surprised that you are just like those right-wing conservatives in America who think they have a monopoly on the truth.

MAO IS THE GREATEST INDIVIDUALIST

Fourth, Mao was the greatest INDIVIDUALIST ever. This guy worked for himself and for his ideology (in some ways like what you’re doing), and cared less for others. Mao had a famous saying, “You create your own destiny.” If that’s not giving the utmost power to the individual, what is?
Certainly, Mao used dictatorial powers to make the Chinese people understand his ideology. But the truth is, this was a man who truly ingrained into the minds of generations of Chinese to come after that it is humankind him/herself that has the power to change the course of the future, not some God, or some supernatural forces. In other words, Mao effectively divorced religions, or higher spiritual powers, from the affairs of men/women once he had launched his cultural attack on Chinese traditional society. In the end, the net result was indeed the triumph of the individual. And we’re seeing the consequence of it today in China. And just to bring my point home, the radical individualism of the 1960s in the United States is also reaping its just rewards in the American family and school.

August 30, 2005 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

AC, your comments are really alarming. I am traveling or I’d rip your arguments apart line by line. They are pure bullshit. It’s apparent you’re intoxicated by your own pseudo-intellectual drivel so my arguments wouldn’t do any good anyway. But someone has to break it to you — your logic is off the wall.

August 30, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment

AC:

>>You’re more racist than I thought.

Just when I think you can’t discredit yourself any further, you surprise me. LMAO.

>>People who use drugs do tend to be less patriotic.

Wow. How interesting!

>Are you trying to defend drug-addicts? Are you a drug addict yourself?

Yes, and a devil worshipper.

>HMMM’s FACTS/POINT OF VIEW IS THE TRUTH?

Hmm. How could FACTS not be true?

Your incoherent ramblings about Mao are entertaing. I’ll give you that.

>in some ways like what you’re doing

So, I am a racist, a drug addict, I have a monopoly on truth, and I’m like Mao. Did I miss anything? Just want to keep track.

>>>that it is humankind him/herself that has the power to change the course of the future, not some God, or some supernatural forces.

Uh, that wasn’t Mao. That was something called the Enlightenment. I realize you are still living in the Middle Ages.

>>And just to bring my point home, the radical individualism of the 1960s in the United States is also reaping its just rewards in the American family and school.

Yep. That is why we were attacked on 9/11, too. Well, that and protecting homosexuals. I didn’t realize I was “debating” Pat Robertson.

I’m done. Good comedy.

August 30, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.”

Voltaire

August 31, 2005 @ 1:44 am | Comment

AC,

Regarding “MAO IS THE GREATEST INDIVIDUALIST”

The definition of Individualism is:
“Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. It embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual, especially when exercised by the state or society.”

Under Mao’s rule, there is very little individual right for average Chinese people. Through Anti-Rightist movement and Culture Revolution, Mao deprived whatever individual rights Chinese use to have.

It is true that Mao is against Confucism. While Confucius is somewhat anti-individualism by talking about “Son obeys Father, wife obey husband, subject obey ruler and so on”, Mao did not try to replace Confucius with individualism. Instead he made himself having absolute power over any other individual.

August 31, 2005 @ 9:03 am | Comment

To LW,

When I am referring to INDIVIDUALISM, I am not talking about INDIVIDUALISM in the sense of political liberty, as you are supposing. Rather, I am referring to INDIVIDUALISM in the sense of moral liberty. That is, freedom from the morality which was defined by traditional Chinese society. Once traditional culture becomes irrelevant, which was made possible by the Cultural Revolution, the decision-making capacity of the individual is empowered. The individual hence becomes effectively freed from the confines of traditional Chinese boundaries set by the family, teachers, etc. etc. Maoist revolution was in part a revolt against the family and traditional hierarchy. Now, having said that, make no mistake, I am not stating that the Cultural Revolution allowed political dissent. Political liberty is out of the question, especially when it deviates from Maoism. But Mao is now dead. There is no red guard to watch over anyone today. But with traditional Chinese culture squashed, what do you have left today in China? A whole generation of INDIVIDUALS empowered, though not in the political realm, but certainly in the moral realm, a condition which I think quite resembles what happened with the Flower children of the 1960s in the United States. Like Mao, John Lenon is dead. And what do you have left? A “liberal looney” generation of baby-boomers.

August 31, 2005 @ 3:45 pm | Comment

>>>>>>Yep. That is why we were attacked on 9/11, too. Well, that and protecting homosexuals. I didn’t realize I was “debating” Pat Robertson.

I’m done. Good comedy.–hmm>>>>>>>

To Hmmmm,

awww…don’t be angry…..

ha ha ha

August 31, 2005 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

AC, I guess that there are different types of senses of morality. Not everyone shares your definition of moral behavior.

August 31, 2005 @ 4:14 pm | Comment